Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
D.C. Rejects Heller’s Gun Permit Application
Posted by: MichaelW on Thursday, July 17, 2008

Unbelievable:
Dick Heller is the man who brought the lawsuit against the District’s 32-year-old ban on handguns. He was among the first in line Thursday morning to apply for a handgun permit.

But when he tried to register his semi-automatic weapon, he says he was rejected. He says his gun has seven bullet clip. Heller says the City Council legislation allows weapons with fewer than eleven bullets in the clip. A spokesman for the DC Police says the gun was a bottom-loading weapon, and according to their interpretation, all bottom-loading guns are outlawed because they are grouped with machine guns
.

What "bottom-loading" has to do with making something a "machine gun" is anybody's guess. Some shotguns are fed shells through the bottom, does that make them machine guns too?

D.C. is not just being cute here, it is blatantly flouting the law. From the Scalia opinion (emphasis added):
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose . . . Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”


The District is apparently banking on the idea that, by defining certain guns so as to place them in an already accepted class of "dangerous and unusual weapons", it can get away with greater restrictions upon which arms its citizens can legally own. However, the Supreme Court specifically found that the handgun is the most preferred weapon of choice among Americans.
We turn finally to the law at issue here. As we have said, the law totally bans handgun possession in the home. It also requires that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times, rendering it inoperable.

As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,27 banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.
Since the only type of handgun that isn't "bottom loading" is a revolver, and since it's highly unlikely that even a bare majority of the handguns owned by people are revolvers, any reasonable person would have to conclude that Heller states that even bottom-loading handguns are beyond the regulatory capacity of the state.

D.C.'s new regulations will obviously lead to more litigation, but this sort of intransigence deserves to be met with claims for big damages. Someone will (or should) file a Section 1983 suit, and make a claims for Bivens-type damages (for violations of Constitutional rights), and such claim should include the individual lawmakers in their personal capacity as well. It's one thing for legislators to tailor its desires for restrictions on a Constitutionally protected activity with Supreme Court law when it's done in good faith. Openly flouting the law, on the other hand, by basically re-instituting the very provisions that were just struck down needs to be slapped down hard.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Welcome to the world MLK faced....governments dragged their feet for 20 years after Brown v. Board of Education. It’s going to be a long slog, thru the courts to convince the Powers That Be that the status quo is untenable.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
The use of the clause "dangerous and unusual weapons" seems odd, unless it literally means BOTH dangerous AND unusual. Couldn’t one reasonably call EVERY gun dangerous? What the h*ll is a non-dangerous gun?
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
Go look at the history of the early nation, say, particularly at privateers. If a private person could then own a ship fully fitted out with cannon, and by extension could take the cannon on land (see the start of the Texican revolt that led to the creation of TX), then clearly the idea of limiting weapons in private hands to handguns and rifles didn’t exist. That implies that (by the meaning of the amendment at the time it was created, and by extension of people owning weapons in use by the militia), crew served weapons should be legal for private ownership. I don’t think that SCOTUS is going there any time soon, but logically I have a hard time seeing a constitutional ban on any weapon. I would, though, support an amendment to outlaw private ownership of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

 
Written By: Jeff Medcalf
URL: http://www.caerdroia.org/blog
Couldn’t one reasonably call EVERY gun dangerous?
Could question, one I recommend you take up with a Federal Court....
I would, though, support an amendment to outlaw private ownership of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
That’s big of you, loses the An-Cap vote, of course....
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So by your reasoning we can make no laws regarding Freedom of Speech, get back to me on "Reasonable, Time, Place and Manner" restrictions on your right(s) of Speech and Assembly.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
What the h*ll is a non-dangerous gun?
I think that is basically the point that Billy Beck has been making in deriding the Heller decision — i.e. that all the gobbledygook language being used to define a right that predates the Constitution will only lead to further restriction of that right, not less.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://qando.net
What "bottom-loading" has to do with making something a "machine gun" is anybody’s guess.
I’m moving to DC, and getting an M2 for home defense...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
think that is basically the point that Billy Beck has been making in deriding the Heller decision — i.e. that all the gobbledygook language being used to define a right that predates the Constitution will only lead to further restriction of that right, not less.

Yeah, except of course he’s wrong...yeah you may have some "theoretical right" to yourself, your property and your life, but out where the rubber meets the road, Heller is a good decision...it grants you the right to self-defense via a fire arm...the fire arm is not for national defense, but also personal defense...it strikes down an outrageous and silly gun ban and sets us on the curse to a FREER US not a less free one...Again welcome to life, you have to struggle to get what you want and one court decision, though it’s seminal, doesn’t get you want what you want.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Welcome to the world MLK faced....governments dragged their feet for 20 years after Brown v. Board of Education. It’s going to be a long slog, thru the courts to convince the Powers That Be that the status quo is untenable.


Well, as I suggested at my own place earlier today, that the Heller ruling didn’t bother to lay out what is and is not constitutional, didn’t help matters. Nice boon for the lawyers, though.

To my mind, this exemplifies not only the need for A Republican president... and hopefuly a conservative... but more of them in the Senate as well, since given a left-leaning Senate, it hardly matters if the White House is held by a conservative; he still has to get his nominees by the Senate.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
If the SCOTUS wants to mixed various laws of international flavor, perhaps Heller should consider an AK-47, every Iraqi is allowed to own one .. by law.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Oh, Michael... I was laughing out loud when I read this, until I got to your remark.

I’ve been saying this for decades, but — in a brief glance — I can only net.cite it back to 1999:
"No, it’s not. The issue I’m taking - and have been right from the beginning - is the premise on which we argue for the right to own guns. You believe that it stems from the 2nd Amendment. I maintain that the 2nd Amendment is laughably redundant to the facts of reality, at best. Your stand here is just another variant on the common belief that rights are the result of the constitution, and that’s not only not true, but it’s also positively dangerous, because - or any other part of the constitution, which is in fact what’s been going on now for nearly a century - and you suddenly don’t have a leg to stand on because you’ve already granted the premise that the piece of paper itself is the authority for rights. Well, if that’s true, it’s also the authority for legislating them out of existence."
Read this part again: "...all the weezils have to do is erase the 2nd Amendment..." This is what’s happening in practice right now, despite the Supreme Court. The litigation will be endless — all while Heller and people who invested their hopes in him have to put up with the sick joke — and (this is crucial) reason will not avail.

How many people thought it was senselessly cute to make a big deal over "what ’is’ is"? (During the Ozark Long March, in case you forgot.) Well, guess what: that kind of gibberish will find enthusiastic audience in the courts, over guns, for as long as it can be dragged out in every possible legal venue in this land and from every imaginable angle.

This is because facts don’t matter and "principles" is an idea only fit to laugh at.

Reason will not avail, and the status quo ante of actual oppression (to hell with people who say that this only "cheapens the victims of real oppression") remains. Witness: Dick Heller.

It would be hilarious if not for what it means.

~~~~~

(psst — will someone please tell the house imbecile that Martin Luther King led children into jails in order to demonstrate his moral point and conviction? ...and that if he couldn’t grow up to something like that, then the least he might do is take more than a cursory glance at history? Thanks. I really appreciate it.)
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Hey Billy, I know that... and your point would be or do you have one?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Or is your point that you’re thinking about holding marches and rallies for the right to possess thermo-nuclear weapons, Billy? I wasn’t really sure.

Of course as I understand it, why do you even care about Heller, the US Constitution doesn’t apply to you....You don’t have a dog in this fight.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Joe,

I don’t think anyone is arguing that people should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons, so let’s leave the strawmen out of it.

As to your point about reasonable time, manner and place restrictions on speech, I guess it depends. The purpose of the free speech/free press provisions is to allow the communication of ideas and opinions. I have no problem with restrictions on verbal expression that have nothing to do with the content of the speech, if it is fact or opinion. False claims (fire in a crowded theater) are even iffy, because the proper remedy there is civil court action against the offender, not a criminal court action. Certainly, restrictions on advertising strike me as wrong. With all of that said, I cannot see how how a person’s right to state an opinion or a fact is compromised by, for example, not allowing passing out leaflets in a particular place at a particular time (assuming the place is public, not private, property).

Similarly, the right to peaceable assembly is not abridged by making you peaceably assemble somewhere other than in city council chambers. But the right to choose your associates is abridged by laws requiring organizations not to discriminate in whom they allow as members. (That’s another tough one; in the end, though, the act of preventing private, as opposed to government, discrimination seems to me not a fit use of the law. A better way to handle that is shaming or shunning those who discriminate.)

But the second amendment’s purpose is, fundamentally, to provide the people with a means to defend themselves against threats to their life or liberty, and that most explicitly includes threats to life or liberty by the government itself. I’m a practical person, despite my idealism, so if I were, for example, in the position of Kelo, et al, I would have fought the expropriation of my property in court and given up when it was clear that the court didn’t have a problem with the government simply taking private property for any reason whatsoever. But that is mainly because I have a family. If I did not have a family and were I in that situation, then when I lost the case, I would strongly consider holing up on the property with food, water and weapons and do my best (though it would likely be fatal to me) to defend my property: the government occasionally needs to be checked to prevent overreach. (This would, of course, be easier and less likely to result in my death if I had heavier weaponry available to me than a rifle.) Some things are worth laying down your life for, and for me, one of those is preventing the government from acting as wanton tyrants, as they now do far too often for the comfort of anyone who believes in liberty.

 
Written By: Jeff Medcalf
URL: http://www.caerdroia.org/blog
Read this part again: "...all the weezils have to do is erase the 2nd Amendment...
Yes, and when they do, your effective right to self-defense will disappear. You can believe in the right to bear arms all you want, but without the constitution it will exist only in your mind.
the common belief that rights are the result of the constitution, and that’s not only not true
Actually it is true, unless you are talking about purely philosophical concepts. It’s a common belief because it reflects reality. Imaginary rights that aren’t enshrined in a constitution or some other political structure aren’t of much use to anyone, except as talking points, or as some sort of protest statement as you are being led off to jail for the possession of illegal weapons. Here in the real world people worry about how the courts are interpreting the constitution — because it matters.
 
Written By: David C.
URL: http://
Nah, the general ANCAP plan is to go down, gun’s blazin in a dash to glorious footnotery in some history that’ll never be written.

However, the time isn’t right for that yet, despite all the natural rights that are being taken away.
Funny thing that.

I’m betting the time will never be right for that, but while we’re waitin we’ll get to hear a lot about all the purely philosophical principles of natural rights sans organized state and how cool it’ll be to sit and groove amidst the rubble of statist civilization once the end times get here.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Thank you David C.

And Jeff just quoting to Billy Beck one od HIS claims..it’s not a straw man, it’s an argument he has advanced.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
"Imaginary rights that aren’t enshrined in a constitution or some other political structure aren’t of much use to anyone, except as talking points, or as some sort of protest statement as you are being led off to jail for the possession of illegal weapons."

From a practical standpoint this is true, but I don’t think the kind of people who penned lines such as this:

"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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

would be so blase about the "purely philosophical concept" of natural rights. Whether or not the individual right to bear arms reaches this threshold is a fair argument, but god damn it’s only been 200 years and already people such as yourself seem to have forgotten the starting point of this endeavor. The Bill of Rights itself was a compromise, and many early Americans feared that the new government would not recognize any right not specifically enumerated.

I do not imagine they would be relieved to find that their descendants would find the entire argument philosophical and unimportant.
 
Written By: capital L
URL: http://
A spokesman for the DC Police says the gun was a bottom-loading weapon, and according to their interpretation, all bottom-loading guns are outlawed because they are grouped with machine guns.
Finally an explanation for the gangsta style pistol grip? Conforming with DC law.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
This should put an end to the talking point that gun bans are "off the table", ergo the NRA is largely irrelevant now and we can work towards "reasonable gun control".

Then again, anyone who said that sort of tripe with a straight face needed to explain how Roe v Wade similarly took bans on abortion off the table.
 
Written By: h0mi
URL: http://
Whatever Billy’s rhetorical limits, the concept he’s advancing is certainly not "wrong" and in fact was the concept that the founders of this country based most rights upon. Rights that are granted by a piece of paper are ones that can be taken away by another piece of paper. It’s really that simple.

By that I don’t mean to discount the practicality of having certain rights specifically recognized by a document as significant as the Constitution. I would agree that rights are only so good, in that sense, as the ability to effectively enforce them. But none of that explains the origin of the right itself.

The common denominator between Billy and myself on this issue, regardless of whatever else we may disagree about, is that rights are specific to the individual. That is, their existence is not dependent upon any document, agreement or legislative act. Certain rights, such as the right of self-defense at issue here, not only predate the Constitution (as specifically noted in the Heller opinion), they are not in the least dependent for their existence upon anyone else’s agreement about them. Water is wet; the sky is blue; I have every right to defend myself against you.

Claiming that rights are granted by others is how slaves are made. That’s Billy’s point, and it’s one I happen to agree with. Where we part ways has to do with the practicality of enforcing rights, not so much where they come from. So where I’m okay with the Heller decision, and its future progeny, Billy finds the whole sordid mess distasteful. C’est la vie. None of that changes the fact that the right to self-defense is neither dependent upon, nor exists at the leisure of, any body of representatives no matter how duly appointed. Such rights are inherent to the person. Period.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
"You can believe in the right to bear arms all you want, but without the constitution it will exist only in your mind."
No, it exists to the extent one is willing and able to enforce it. That is most definitely real.
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://

"that the Heller ruling didn’t bother to lay out what is and is not constitutional, didn’t help matters. Nice boon for the lawyers, though"

I think that is how case law is made, one decision at a time, each one constricting or expanding a principle.

"the Ozark Long March,"

Love that phrase; hope I can remember it.


I really don’t see where it matters, from a practical standpoint, whether a right is a natural right or if it is granted by the Constitution. What we live with is the interpretation of that right by the courts, leavened with some political action by the legislature.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
"You can believe in the right to bear arms all you want, but without the constitution it will exist only in your mind."

Even with the Constitution it may exist only in your mind; ask the DC council.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Bottom loader = machine gun eh?. Well, i’ve got plenty of machine guns then..SA-WEET!. All the semi-auto and pump shotguns I have ever owned are bottom feeders as well as any bolt action rifle I can think of. This kind of ranks up there with the 50cal. ban in California, which, the last I heard, included muzzle loaders. Stupid is as stupid does.
 
Written By: markm
URL: http://
But none of that explains the origin of the right itself.
The origin of rights is philosophical and belief in natural rights is akin to religious belief. It doesn’t matter how strongly you believe that rights are inherent to an individual, because many people do not believe in them. When people that do not believe in such rights control a government that governs you, your rights then cease to exist in fact, and return to the realm of pure philosophy.
they are not in the least dependent for their existence upon anyone else’s agreement about them.
They are entirely dependent for their practical existence on agreement about them, whether enshrined in a constitution, or accepted as custom/tradition. Go attempt to exercise your right to free speech in Iran, or your right to self-defense in Britain (although it appears they are now taking some steps to restore that right). Without a state structure that recognizes them, rights merely represent your own ideas about how things should be. There isn’t even agreement on what rights people should have. Just because you think certain rights are "inherent" doesn’t make them so.






 
Written By: David C.
URL: http://
I’m moving to DC, and getting an M2 for home defense...
Or a Bren, Sten or Sterling, for that matter.
 
Written By: Crusader
URL: http://www.coalitionoftheswilling.net
I read Scalia’s majority opinion and to me it established two things.

First, the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right just as are speech, press and religion. The majority considered self defense a valid use of a firearm. Scalia stated the denying a license could only be done for cause. I believe that a license is itself an infringement. Taking this argument to its logical conclusion, could the government require a license to give a speech? Publish an editorial? Practice a religion?

Second, Scalia wrote that some reasonable restrictions could be imposed, such as keeping the mentally ill or convicted felons from possessing weapons. It would also be very reasonable to prohibit private citizens from owning weapons of mass destruction.

If the Brady bunch and their gun ban associates want to take away the Second Amendment there is a path to do it - amend the U.S. Constitution.
 
Written By: arch
URL: http://
There is never going to be a way to demonstrate to "David C." the cheap and crummy folly of his position, because he’s stupid. He can have it. He should keep this in mind:

Don’t ever complain about the violation of one of your rights, son, because I’ll be here to let you you know — on your own premises — that they never existed to begin with.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Incisively reasoned Beck, incisively reasoned..."David is Stoopit", might want to throw in Doodie-Head, too...

Actually from his argument; he CAN complain of his rights being violated, in the case where he has a demonstrable "right" to a given good, service, property, or attribute, or action EXPLICITLY guaranteed by a political covenant, OR ratified by a plurality/majority of the populace believing it to be a right, either of long-standing or of modern necessity. In short, where the law grants a right or the populace grants one, one CAN complain when it is withdrawn...

HOWEVER, believing one has the "right", using just two examples, say to a thermo-nuclear device or the right to have sex with one’s 8 year old daughter, is NOT a right, but merely a belief, not substantiated in law or in popular belief...and one’s inability to exercise this "right" is therefore NOT a violation of your right and nothing you can complain about.

As one of our Founding Documents says, this seems fairly "self-evident" but apparently it’s not.

But thank you Dr. Beck for your illuminating commentary. Every day I stand in amazement that An-Cap’ism isn’t THE dominant ideology of the land, when I am confronted with your artful elucidations of the philosophy.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Without a state structure that recognizes them, rights merely represent your own ideas about how things should be. There isn’t even agreement on what rights people should have. Just because you think certain rights are "inherent" doesn’t make them so.
Your philosophy is exactly what leads to governments which restrict rights. My reading of history and human nature tells me that only a strong international philosophical movement that solidly stands for and proclaims natural rights will be an effective instrument to fight for human rights and freedoms within governments.
 
Written By: kyleN
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
Your philosophy is exactly what leads to governments which restrict rights. My reading of history and human nature tells me that only a strong international philosophical movement that solidly stands for and proclaims natural rights will be an effective instrument to fight for human rights and freedoms within governments.
I think David’s and I know MY objection is the whole idea of "natural rights." There is no doubt in my mind that ideas shape the world...so the ideas in your head are crucial, potentially, to the outcome of real world actions.

But to ascribe to people "Natural Rights" is a tough one...Who grants them, God, Our Creator? Me, you, by virtue of our thinking of them...is the right to incestuous pedophilia a natural right? If not, why not?

So what has to happen is that people have to make a case for a concept as a "right". The concept is in your head, and can be Earth-shaking in its implication, BUT the "right" is granted when you convince enough people that your concept ought to be a "right" not just another idea in the public domain.

The right is then enshrined either explicitly in a political covenant or by tradition and belief within the society. But the "right" is granted by a force outside of you, the people around you accord you the right...you don’t just have a right granted to you by virtue of some mythical Natural Right...

Billy Beck would argue that you have an inherent right to YOU, self-ownership. From that "right" flows so much else of his philosophy...well Beck would call it a "right", I’d call it a concept. Because it is only an idea in his head, there are many other cultures, that by many measures are as "successful" as ours, that do NOT recognize that right. You don’t own you, the Emperor does, the Pharaoh does, the Mir does, your family does...Now can you or Beck dispute their "right" to own you or can you demonstrate to the village elders or the Pharaoh that, no they’re wrong and YOU own you? I mean by any form of rational discussion? What proof of this "right" of self-ownership will you adduce? My answer is "No, you cannot demonstrate a ’right’ to self-ownership."

You can demonstrate its utility, you can sell the idea, the concept of self-ownership or of the principles of NAMBLA, for that matter, but saying "I ought to have this right" does not make it a right. Once you have sold the society on your concept as valuable tool, they, then, make it a societal axiom, a "right." Anything else is just the ravings of a lunatic or visionary...but they aren’t rights. As David C. says, go and demonstrate your inherent/Natural right to Free Speech in Iran or Zimbabwe? Hie yourself to North Korea and demonstrate your inherent right to self-ownership...Feel free, but don’t expect much apart from a kick in the head and a trip to a "camp." In those countries there are NO such rights.

Bottom-line: you have a "Natural right" to nuth’n...you can get me to grant you a right thru a process of discussion and action, but until you do all you have is an idea in your head, not a right.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Such rights are inherent to the person. Period.
The reason our natural rights are even worth discussing at a philosophical level is to try and ensure that the meaningless pieces of paper say the right things, and that the instead of being meaningless, the pieces of paper have actual meaning and that we practice what the piece of paper says.
Start enumerating the natural rights and let’s hammer them all out once and for all, surely there have to be a finite number.
Don’t ever complain about the violation of one of your rights,
And he CAN complain about his rights being violated when the violation contradicts what the paper says, but alas, no further. From that standpoint it’s essential to have the philosophical dreamers remind us what the pieces of paper OUGHT to say.

But don’t kid yourselves, those pieces of paper are what secure your rights in the long term, your arsenals only insure it for the length of time it takes to overwhelm you.
"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.
The guys who believed in the natural rights and wrote about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were perfectly comfortable taking someone’s life (execution for crimes, depriving him of his right), and relieving someone of their liberty (incarceration for crimes, depriving him of his right) in a formal, structured, state backed way, based on pieces of paper.
They recognized your RIGHTS can be forfeited and that you are not answerable ONLY to the Creator for them.
How can an inalieable right EVER be forfeited?

Hence, the pieces of paper.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
There is never going to be a way to demonstrate to "David C." the cheap and crummy folly of his position, because he’s stupid.
A laughable response typical of a fanatic who can’t understand how someone can’t see the TRUTH. The reason you can’t demonstrate the error of my thinking, is that your argument about rights conflicts with reality.
Don’t ever complain about the violation of one of your rights, son, because I’ll be here to let you you know — on your own premises — that they never existed to begin with.
Actually my rights as a U.S. citizen do exist. They exist because of our political system, the constitution, our laws, our customs, and our traditions — you know, the the institutions you sneer at when talking about the imaginary rights which reside in your own mind. So if my rights as a citizen are violated, I will be complaining about them. But I won’t be complaining about rights that I think I should have, but which are mere philosophical concepts. And btw, I’m 44, so if you are calling me "son" I hope you are at least in your 60s.

Tell me, who decides which natural rights exist? I’ve never gotten a straight answer on that from natural rights religion proponents. Plenty of people in the U.S. think they have a right to housing, to a "living wage," to government-funded healthcare, or to all sorts of other things. Why should anyone accept your version of natural rights over someone elses?
Your philosophy is exactly what leads to governments which restrict rights.
It’s not my philosophy but rather an observation about the difference between pure philosophy and the practical application of philosophical concepts. And governments by their very nature restrict individual rights. There’s not a government around that doesn’t impose some limitations on individual freedom.
My reading of history and human nature tells me that only a strong international philosophical movement that solidly stands for and proclaims natural rights will be an effective instrument to fight for human rights and freedoms within governments.
I’m not arguing that the concept of natural rights isn’t useful or beneficial. What I am arguing is that without a political structure to enforce/recognize human rights, those rights are mere philosophical concepts which have no practical meaning — which was the case in most of the world throughout most of human history — and is still the case in much of the world today.

 
Written By: David C.
URL: http://
What I am arguing is that without a political structure to enforce/recognize human rights, those rights are mere philosophical concepts which have no practical meaning — which was the case in most of the world throughout most of human history — and is still the case in much of the world today.
Depends on what you understand an inherent or inalienable right to be.

Personally, I see an inherent right as one I have the moral authority to exercise without anyone’s permission. That moral authority is founded in the fact that I live (i.e. my existence). No piece of paper, no recognition by society or any political structure gives me that right. It may recognize it. I may acknowledge it. But it has no role in its existence. I simply exercise it as necessary.

Society may try to limit it, it may attempt to punish me for exercising it. And I may fail in my attempt to exercise it successfully. But none of that invalidates the fact that I have that inherent right - which is mine alone - to exercise as and when I determine it to be necessary.


 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
The DC law defines machine guns as: 1) firing more than one shot per pull of the trigger -or- 2) semiautomatic with a capacity of 12 rounds or more.

DC police then conclude that magazine fed weapons (like the 1911 that Heller was attempting to register) are MGs because they can accept a magazine that contains more than 11 rounds . . .

This was all planned by Heller; in the first challange he was trying to register a .22 revolver. After he won the case, he went forward trying to register the .22 as well as a 7 shot semiauto. Not it appears he once again has standing (thank you, DC), this time to challange the "machine gun ban" portion of the law.

My expectation is that the appeals court shoots down DC’s arguments, and that the Supremes refuse any DC appeals. We lost our rights slowely, regaining them will be a slow process.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
McQ, respectfully, truly...
Society may try to limit it, it may attempt to punish me for exercising it. And I may fail in my attempt to exercise it successfully. But none of that invalidates the fact that I have that inherent right - which is mine alone - to exercise as and when I determine it to be necessary.
You have a right to:
1) Kill young womyn hitch-hikers
2) Have sex with person’s under the age of 16
3) Kill Jews
4) Kill those possessed by demons?

We imprison folks who do this every year. Have they merely failed in their attempt to exercise their right successfully?

Can you show me the basis for your right? Because you live? Do dolphins have rights? Do ants? They live...so biological activity is the basis for rights now?

David C asks, and I’ll second it, what ARE your natural rights?

1) Self ownership
2) Self-Defense
3) Property
4) Employment
5) Health Care
6) Housing?

Please explain how we differentiate certain natural rights from other mere desires?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Note the clever choice in arms Heller attempted to register; if he had started with the 1911, he wouldn’t need to go back now, but the initial case would have carried more risk. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

At the same time, there are lawsuits against gun bans in Chicago and San Francisco, which are really attempts to achieve incorporation. I predict the 5th circuit incorporates, the 9th is a throwup IMO. If the 5th and 9th disagree on the issue, the incorporation issue could be heading towards the supremes . . .
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Don, good points...
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Society may try to limit it, it may attempt to punish me for exercising it. And I may fail in my attempt to exercise it successfully. But none of that invalidates the fact that I have that inherent right - which is mine alone - to exercise as and when I determine it to be necessary.
I agree — but I also view that are pure philosophy.

The real action, now, is in the courts.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
The arguments are the same as they were the first time around

the rights just ’are’

the rights extend from creation of the social contract


 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Don, good points...
The highest court of the land now comes out and agrees with the individual rights interpretation (in a decision that suggests we will get strict scutiny), and there is a bunch of wailing and gnashing of teeth because we haven’t been delivered to the promised land of machine guns, ammo forts, and rivers of single malt scotch . . .

The Heller decision went about as far as it could go in our favor with the case at hand. Wishes for legal MGs and incorporation coming immediatly out of the case were unrealistic. Case law will decide the details, and some results won’t make us happy, but most will. The momentum is on our side.

Right now what is critical is that we pick our fights carefully. We shouldn’t be launching our next counterattack using a wife beating meth dealer as the plaintif. In fact, in the San Fran case it is a gay guy who is backed by NRA and Pink Pistols (a gay gun rights org).
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
If you’re curious as to which rights are "natural" — i.e. inherent to the person — then consider which ones amongst those listed by Joe don’t involve forcing someone else to submit to your will.

The problem, as I’ve mentioned before, is that those of you basing the existence of your rights on what others give you are mistaking enforcement for existence. As a practical matter, rights don’t matter much unless others agree to acknowledge them, because otherwise even if you have a legitimate right and exercise it, who cares? Outside of a society, in a lone-man-in-the-wilderness world, rights don’t really mean anything. But the ability to enforce them, and the acknowledgment by others of them, doesn’t speak at all to their existence in the first place.

One more problem with "rights granted by the Constitution" theory is that the founders didn’t it see it that way. The entire idea behind the Constitution was that individuals granted certain of their own powers to the State, and then authorized the State to make a compact with the other States to form a more perfect Union (than under the Articles of Confederation). Never once was it considered that the Constitution granted the people anything. Quite to the contrary, the document was intended to both establish a federal framework for the union of States, and place strict limits on government powers. Indeed, just look at the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. If your rights come from the document, then what were these Amendments about?
At the same time, there are lawsuits against gun bans in Chicago and San Francisco, which are really attempts to achieve incorporation. I predict the 5th circuit incorporates, the 9th is a throwup IMO. If the 5th and 9th disagree on the issue, the incorporation issue could be heading towards the supremes . . .
I’m surprised to hear about the one in San Francisco. I would have the thought that the strategy would be to get favorable rulings in the Seventh Circuit (Chicago), the Eleventh (FL, GA, AL), the Fifth (TX), and the Fourth (VA, WV, MD, SC), before going to the Ninth or the Sixth (MI).
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://qando.net
Personally, I see an inherent right as one I have the moral authority to exercise without anyone’s permission.
Throughout history many people who were bigger, tougher, stronger, better-armed, better trained, wealthier, smarter, of a certain birth, or whatever other advantage might have applied, have thought they had a natural right to rule over the weak or less fortunate. And often their natural right to rule included the right to kill you if objected to being ruled. The strong ruling over the weak seems more "natural" than most of the rights we are actually in favor of.

 
Written By: David C.
URL: http://
Well Don, I started by saying this is like the fight MLK had, more generally the Civil Rights Movement (CRM). The CRM chose its fights well and its "victims" well. Rosa Parks was not just some lady they pulled off the streets, she was CHOSEN and coached for her role...It worked for the CRM and the NRA and other gun rights activists need to take a page from the CRM and its activities. Choose your fights and your Rosa Parks’ well...
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
If you’re curious as to which rights are "natural" — i.e. inherent to the person — then consider which ones amongst those listed by Joe don’t involve forcing someone else to submit to your will.
Can you demonstrate why the rights that don’t involve coercion aren’t rights, too?

I believe Hume said "We can prove that running hot rollers over babies causes them pain, we can NOT prove that to do so is wrong."

If you would care to demonstrate the falsity of Hume’s claim I would most eagerly await your exposition....

Again I am a libertarian-conservative...I believe in self-ownership, but I acknowledge it is a BELIEF, not a "right" or at least a natural right granted to me by God, my Creator, or by virtue simply of my existence. It is not even a "right" under the Constitution...you have a right, qualified, to life, liberty, and property...they IMPLY self ownership but do not explicitly grant it.

The bogus right of "privacy" is an extension of self-ownership in the social sphere, but again note I call it a "bogus" right because SCOTUS cannot say which amendment or portion of the Constitution grants it...from privacy flows contraception, abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, a host of social self-ownership ideas, but are they really rights that the Founders granted us...or new rights discovered by SCOTUS?

 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Joe,

It indeed looks like we are choosing our fights well. I’m just hopping that the immature who demand a right to bear any arm under any and all circumstaces remain content to bitch, and don’t mess things up with a poorly chosen lawsuit . . .
I’m surprised to hear about the one in San Francisco. I would have the thought that the strategy would be to get favorable rulings in the Seventh Circuit (Chicago),
I was wrong about the 5th, if Chicago is the 7th.

The lawsuits are in San Fran and Chicago, due to handgun bans that are similar to the DC ban. Basically, these cases are about incorporation, the Supremes already answered the other issues in Heller. At least, that’s my take on it . . .

There is a very strong argument for incorporation, and if the 9th doesn’t agree, it isn’t likely the Supremes will side with them.

If the Chicago and San Fran appeals don’t agree, it will push the Supremes towards resolving the issue . . .
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
I would have the thought that the strategy would be to get favorable rulings in the Seventh Circuit (Chicago)
The problem being that I doubt such a thing could occur...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
The problem, as I’ve mentioned before, is that those of you basing the existence of your rights on what others give you are mistaking enforcement for existence.
I propose in the absence of other men, no ’rights’ exist because they don’t need to. Rights are a concept only needed by men, nature has no need of such a construct. The natural rights thinkers recognized only men had them anyway from wherever they may be derived.

One ’man’ alone has no need of rights, he’s never going to have to exercise them, or protect them, from another man. Defending himself from a bear in the wilderness isn’t a ’right’, because the bear doesn’t care, and isn’t trying to deprive him of his ’right to life’ as it were.
Building a hut for himself to live in doesn’t constitute property because no other sentient being is going to come along and contest his ownership of ’his’ hut.
If it doesn’t apply to a single man as a natural construct, how then should it apply to a collective of men as a purely natural construct?
If these ’rights’ exist, it appears they manifest themselves only the day the lone man encounters another man.
Then are they not based on a society, rather than his mere existence?

Therefore rights strike me as a social contract between men, we can quibble about what the contract says, and whether or not it’s proper, but that doesn’t diminish the fact that the rights result from a social contract between men.
By men, for men. I don’t condone any totalitarian injustice and infringement of rights with the statement, but that doesn’t make it any less true in my mind.

As to inalienable.
I think you must agree I can forfeit my rights through some action society agrees should permit them to deprive me of them.
Yet how is that?
If I commit some wrong do I still have a right to life or liberty, and if not, by what ’right’ do others conspire to deprive me of them?
If it is INALIENABLE, how can I ever forfeit it, how can I ever do anything to anyone or anything that causes me to forfeit something that just "is" and is inalienable.
Yet would you not agree that I can forfeit at least two of my inalienable rights under certain circumstances, my liberty and or my life.

But still, how can it be a inalienable right if you can take it, under any circumstances you can contrive to describe and how is it at any point in a natural order that your right to life & liberty, but life specifically, comes to supersede mine?

So, sounds like they really aren’t inalienable after all.

Finally - as a further thought on rights, if you can argue that I have a right to life & liberty, I would argue that individuals, or a collective, have a right to deprive me of them as well. Many of you think so (and I agree with you) as you will cite what you feel is your Creator granted authority to end my life if I should attempt to end yours, or if under the right circumstance if I should attempt to ’steal your stuff’ and, to your mind perhaps, in the process jeopardize YOUR life.

A right to end a life - Of course we don’t call it that, we call it the right to defend ourselves, but the ’right’ to end a life is a, if not the, logical possible outcome of exercising the right to self defense. We merely dress it up because directly saying we have the right to kill a man sounds rather negative, no?

Does it not strike you that "I have a right to defend myself if you attack me" works just as well if you say "I CAN defend myself if you attack me"? The difference seems largely to be by proclaiming it to be a ’right’ you attempt to garner a higher moral authority for your defensive action, as opposed to merely pointing out your mechanical capability for defense.

You only need to justify your rights to a society, as with the bear attacking the man, nature doesn’t care about ’rights’. As man is part of nature, I’ll argue that it is ’natural’ they exist, but only as a result of the social contracts amongst men. I may believe the Creator intended us to have rights, but He may also have intended us to have flat panel TV’s. I don’t believe nature makes it so, man makes it so.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Natural Rights and its cousin Natural Law are interesting beasties...
Looker raises some valuable points; only men in groups have need of rights. A man has no need of rights...and bears don’t recognize them.

Where do these natural rights come from? Yahweh, the Holy Trinity, Buddha, Allah, a "Higher Power"?

Are they like Gravity, the Electro-magnetic force, the Strong Force or the Weak Force? Can they be described mathematically? Can they be determined by experiment?

In short if they are "natural" are they akin to the physical laws which govern the rest of our lives? I mean each of us doesn’t have his/her own version of Gravity, do we? "I think I’ll fall at 2.4 metres/second/second"..."Well, I want to get down quick, I’m falling at 12 metres/second/second." "Well I don’t like Gravity at ALL and I’m not falling."

Natural rights would seem to imply that they are a part of the Universe, just as mass is inherent to the Universe, and yet we can not find any physical evidence of "natural rights" can we? Instead we find that humans have been and are governed by a huge range of taboos, mores, customs and laws, all predicated on many varying philosophies and views of an individual’s place within the Universe. Certainly electrons, neutrons and protons don’t exhibit this wide variance of activity and action...so it would seem that humans are NOT electrons governed by a set of discoverable laws that are unvarying thru space and time...which would kind of undercut the idea of "Natural Law" and "Natural Rights." That is UNLESS you are going to say that YOUR version of a Higher Power has revealed such laws to your sect for the edification of all mankind, but some how that approach doesn’t seem the one I’m going to hear on a libertarian board.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
You have a right to:
1) Kill young womyn hitch-hikers
2) Have sex with person’s under the age of 16
3) Kill Jews
4) Kill those possessed by demons?
What inherent right gives me the moral authority founded in my existence to do so Joe?

We’er not talking "power" or "abiltiy" here - we’re talking about an inherent right.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
I agree — but I also view that are pure philosophy.
It is hardly philosophy when I defend myself without your permission.
The real action, now, is in the courts.
No. The aftermath is in the courts. I’ve already either successfully or unsuccessfully defended myself. The courts would have had nothing to do with that.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
the rights extend from creation of the social contract
No.

Rights predate any "social contract", whatever that is. In fact, in many cases, such as ours, societies were formed to both acknowledge and do a better job of protecting what was already inherently understood as our individual rights.

Groups may either acknowledge or not acknowledge what exists. But as you may have noticed through the ages, whether acknowledged or not, it hasn’t stopped the exercise of those inherent rights by human beings.

If the inherent right to life, for instance, doesn’t exist as an inherent right, then there is no basis for an argument about the morality of taking a life. Certainly you understand that life predated society and violating a person’s right to his life was as morally wrong then as it is now. That doesn’t mean that right can’t be violated. What it means is without the right, noting morally wrong is done when it is violated.

If you don’t believe you have the moral authority to act in the preservation and extension of your life as it exists without the permission of the state, "society" or other individuals then I would guess you have a completely different idea of what constitutes a right. I’d further guess that your definition is closer to that of permission, or a grant of action permitted by the state, "society" or other individuals.

If that’s the case, we’re talking about two different concepts.

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Throughout history many people who were bigger, tougher, stronger, better-armed, better trained, wealthier, smarter, of a certain birth, or whatever other advantage might have applied, have thought they had a natural right to rule over the weak or less fortunate. And often their natural right to rule included the right to kill you if objected to being ruled. The strong ruling over the weak seems more "natural" than most of the rights we are actually in favor of.
They had no such "natural right", they had the power (and most likely the collusion of other men, usually for a reward, to attempt to subjugate the rest).

There is no inherent right to rule unless you believe that right exists for all men. Inherent rights are universal rights based on their right to exist - that’s their power. Rights also have an inherent responsibility of reciprocation. You respect my right, I’ll respect yours. That’s how they work. If your attempt to violate my right to life, liberty or property, I will, without permission, defend them.

All you’ve described above is successful violation of the inherent rights of others by the use of force. That’s not a right, that’s an ability provided by immoral behavior and predicated on violating the rights of others by force.

You seem to think, for whatever reason, that "right" means something which can’t be violated.
Obviously that’s not true as you point out in your example. Inherent or inalienable means something which is integral to my existence.

If my life isn’t mine, then I have no right to extend it. But my life is mine, and mine alone. And the right it is inherent and non-transfeable. It can be violated, but you cannot take my right to my life away from me and cancel it or give it to someone else.

So as a part of that inherent base right I have the inherent right to defend my life. I don’t have the inherent right to violate yours. I have the inherent right to liberty since it is required to live. I don’t have the inherent right to deny you liberty for the same reason. I have the inherent right to morally acquired property as a requirement of life. I don’t have the inherent right to deny you morally acquired property for the same reason.

All of these rights have predated the state and society and we’ve acted on them universally without them. The fact that we’re finally recognizing them and in some case acknowledging them and protecting them doesn’t change that simple fact of history.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
I propose in the absence of other men, no ’rights’ exist because they don’t need to.
Of course they exist - they just don’t come into conflict.

But you will, without permission do what is necessary to extend, defend (perhaps against animals or the elements) and improve your life through the exercise of liberty and the acquisition of necessary property. And you have the absolute inherent right to do that based on the requirements of your existence.

And if they do come into conflict (i.e. "other men" show up), you will act without permission (unless you plan on sitting down and laying out the rules with this person who is already attempting actions which you inherently know violate your rights) to defend what is morally yours and no one elses.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
They had no such "natural right", they had the power (and most likely the collusion of other men, usually for a reward, to attempt to subjugate the rest).
No McQ, they had the RIGHT...Pharaoh was Ra incarnate, he was Egypt, he was the Nile, without Ra, without the Nile we die...Pharaoh had the RIGHT...

Divine Right of Kings, sound familiar...Louis had the RIGHT...

Alternatively, you have the POWER to kill a burglar, do you have the right? Or isn’t as someone else mentioned your right to kill the burglar just an excuse to cover your power to kill the burglar? The right of self defense is really the right to abrogate MY right to live...is it really your right or just your ability?

You have NOT demonstrated a "natural right" your are merely re-stating the axiom...that you CALL a right.

In Euclidean Geometry parallel lines do not meet...it’s an axiom, but it’s not true, to be fair it’s not true in Non-Euclidean Geometry, which is just as valid as Euclidean Geometry.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
No McQ, they had the RIGHT ...
No Joe, they didn’t, no matter how many times you claim they did.

You haven’t the foggiest idea of what a right entails much less the concept of natural or inalienable rights. You apparently have no desire to learn about them either.
You have NOT demonstrated a "natural right" your are merely re-stating the axiom...that you CALL a right.
Actually I’ve done much more than that and you’ve simply ignored it preferring instead to stick stubbornly with your ignorant declarations. And I’m not using "ignorant" as a pejorative, but instead as an apt description.

I demonstrate my natural rights every day as I act without anyone’s permission to defend and extend my life.

This isn’t that complex, but seems to be concept beyond your understanding or, alternatively, one you’re simply not interested in even attempting to understand.

I don’t mind a debate or a discussion, but I’m not going to waste my time talking in endless circles with someone who refuses to acknowledge a fairly common concept and its common definitions and insists instead on using his own, homemade ones.

As long as you insist that ability or power to do something equals a "right" we simply have nothing further to discuss. That sort of insistence brands you as someone who obviously isn’t conversant enough with the concept of rights in general, much less inherent rights, to hold an intelligent debate. Again, I’m not trying to insult you, but to point out why I seen no further evidence that doing so would be worthwhile.

Now, if all of that sounds vaguely "Beckian", you might consider looking in the mirror for the reason.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
I don’t mind a debate or a discussion, but I’m not going to waste my time talking in endless circles with someone who refuses to acknowledge a fairly common concept and its common definitions and insists instead on using his own, homemade ones.
Pretty funny McQ...I’m asking you to "prove" Natural Rights...I cite examples of those who would NOT accept self-ownership as a Natural Right and YOU claim I’m not willing to learn...

You’re not much better than Beck at that level...

We can demonstrate many other Natural Laws, why not Natural Rights or Law?

David C. has pointed out that many people would argue they do have the "right" to boss the serfs around...you keep coming back to your "axiom" no they didn’t.

Prove it....

I’m willing to learn, but YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO TEACH IT.

A "common concept and common definition" are NOT rights, they are common concepts...In certain areas it’s a common concept that children ARE sexualized beings...is there desire to have sex with them a right? Concepts are just that a concept an idea, it may or may not be true or have purchase within the larger community.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Pretty funny McQ...I’m asking you to "prove" Natural Rights...I cite examples of those who would NOT accept self-ownership as a Natural Right and YOU claim I’m not willing to learn...

You’re not much better than Beck at that level...
And there’s a lesson there for someone, huh?
I’m willing to learn, but YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO TEACH IT.
I disagree with the first part of the sentence, Joe, so the second part is irrelevant.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
McQ is exercising his Natural Right to not have to explain himself to you.

I tried this same tack with Beck and Kyle, Scott Jacobs (I think) and whoever else the Natural Rights Dungeonmasters were at the time. It does not matter how many examples you provide - if you continue to disagree, you are just too stupid to understand TRUTH.

You can’t reason someone out of a fantasy world in which rights he declares himself to have are valid and universal, but the rights you declare for yourself are ridiculous and ignorant.

Welcome to AnCap and Friends, where meaningless philosophical fluff will always trump what you actually experience in the real world.

 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://repatriate.blogspot.com
It has nothing to do with "too stupid", Jeff - neither you or Joe are stupid. It has to do with desire and/or willingness to actually discuss something - you know, respond to questions and points made by other people?. Joe claims he’s "willing to learn", but after ignoring my question and being non-responsive to my points, I see nothing which indicates what he claims.

What I see instead is just a repeat of the old USENET days when unyielding and established positions are thrown into any discussion about a subject for which both sides have strong feelings and they square off with no desire to really to advance the ball.

This isn’t USENET and I have no desire to recreate it with those of that mind-set. If you choose to interpret that as "you’re too stupid", that’s not my problem.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
respond to questions and points made by other people?.
I did McQ you explain that Pharoah haqd no right to boss the serfs and I say, Yes he did, he had an internally consistent and logical explanation for why he could. An explanation so solid that the sytem extended far longer than our experiment in another set of natural rights..A ssytem accpeted by-and-large for several thousand years by Pharoah AND the serfs.

You can’t explain how YOUR concept of natural rights is more correct than Pharoah’s other than to say, "It is" and I don’t want to debate. That’s a good religious dogma, but is it something that is natural, expalinable and discoverable?

I could explain Physics to Pharoah, or his Engineers, but Moral Philosophy, not so much...

I’d be happy if you Natural Rights guys wold just own up to a number of facts, it’s a BELIEF system, not inherent to EVERYONE human being and that the support for it derives not from some philosophy of Natural Rights and Natural Law, but the EMPERICAL evidence, that it works....
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I did McQ you explain that Pharoah haqd no right to boss the serfs and I say, Yes he did, he had an internally consistent and logical explanation for why he could.
I believe I did, Joe - it’s non-responsive. We’re not talking about Pharoh’s claims. We’re talking about the basis of inherent rights and why people like Jefferson, Madison and a host of others found them to be as real as the paper they acknowledged them on.

I can and have explained the concept (not my concept) of natural rights in posts and every now and then dipped into the comment section. What I’ve gotten back in return is nothing more than the usual unthinking nonsense you’ve just cited as a valid response to what I’ve said.

Look, I enjoy your comments here as much as anyone, especially when you’re doing a parody of the left.

But frankly, you have no interest in discussing natural, inherent or inalienable rights, their concept, or any other aspect of them. And the sad part is, I know why.

If you even tried and happened to acknowledge something you previously denied, we both know darn well that a certain group would show up here and rake you over the coals.

Getting into rights, properly, isn’t something you do in the comment section of a blog - and I’m regretting that I have again done so here. I’ve read about them extensively, studied and discussed them and their various concepts for over 20 years. And I’ve had the opportunity to discuss them, over the years and in extended discussions (months and years) with people who began the discussion just as you have.

Did I convince them all? No. But all of them left the discussion with an entirely different view of rights than the one you presently hold.

And it is that present view you hold that says to me that the discussion isn’t worth the time and effort here. If you’d like to get into it outside the blog, I’m willing. You know my email address.

That way we can do it at our leisure and without the peanut gallery. If you’re serious about rights let me know. Otherwise, I’ll assume I was correct with my first assessment of the situation.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
McQ, you know I like you, so can I please just get this last one in?

"It’s not that I didn’t have the natural right to masturbate on that playground, but rather that the jackbooted stormtroopers of the Amerikan Police State prevented me from exercising it."

Ok, I’m done. Sorry.

:)
 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
Heh ... feel better (no pun intended, of course)?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Ultimately I think I see that it matters not where rights comes from, I believe they ought to exist and that is sufficient.

The rest is philosophical discussion and mere justification for action or inaction on my part.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider