Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Philosophy and Religion > Philosophy

Philosophy For discussion about general and fundamental problems connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language


Thanks Tree30Thanks
Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 19th, 2017, 12:54 PM   #21
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 808
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeDoc View Post
:YAWN:

Nothing you quoted changed what I wrote.
If you have a point to make, make it. If not, leave me alone.
discollector is offline  
Old October 19th, 2017, 01:00 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In a House
Posts: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
One Right that the founders and early courts ruled in favor of as an absolute Right was the Right to keep and bear Arms.

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth in 1822. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_..._United_States

The next time that issue was looked at was in 1846 in the state of Georgia:

The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

Shortly thereafter, Texas weighed in:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."
-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.
..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence"
. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

It's amazing that the wording of the Second Amendment has not changed, but the laws have. I would submit that is because the people have not been fully informed as to where their Rights come from.
Ones right to own arms comes from the 1689 English Bill of Rights, and that right can be limited, as it is with felons, military grade weaponry, etc. You can use as arms (anything that can be used as a weapon of sorts) to defend yourself, which could be a rock, your own hands, or anything you can grab, hold and/or swing, thereby striking someone.

Last edited by TreeDoc; October 19th, 2017 at 01:04 PM.
TreeDoc is offline  
Old October 19th, 2017, 01:02 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In a House
Posts: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
If you have a point to make, make it. If not, leave me alone.
Is this not a discussion board? Is this not a discussion? You don't have to reply, let alone read anything I write. If you don't like that then too bad.
TreeDoc is offline  
Old October 19th, 2017, 01:03 PM   #24
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 28,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeDoc View Post
Natural rights are nothing more than the right to life, liberty, and property. The DoI calls them inalienable/unalienable rights.
I don't see them as being natural at all. I have had the opportunity to work with some of our First Nations people, what were formerly called Indians. They do not see property as being owned by an individual for example. Or perhaps "did not see" would be a more valid statement but still a generalization these days.

The whole "life and liberty" thing too is a recent construct of man. Still under all kinds of religious influence, slavery and taking of lives was commonplace. It was a moral shift by some societies based on simple conscience that caused that shift. I guess if you want to call that natural OK, but it was a learned thing.
RNG is offline  
Old October 19th, 2017, 01:12 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In a House
Posts: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
I don't see them as being natural at all. I have had the opportunity to work with some of our First Nations people, what were formerly called Indians. They do not see property as being owned by an individual for example. Or perhaps "did not see" would be a more valid statement but still a generalization these days.

The whole "life and liberty" thing too is a recent construct of man. Still under all kinds of religious influence, slavery and taking of lives was commonplace. It was a moral shift by some societies based on simple conscience that caused that shift. I guess if you want to call that natural OK, but it was a learned thing.
First Peoples didn't have much/if any concept of rights at all.

The "life, liberty, and property" is a construct of man dating back a couple millennia + in western culture. Different societies with different constructs. Western society pretty much overrode and eradicated much of the First Peoples societies and tried to change their ideals by way of compliance. Some of the First Peoples ideals have been enveloped into our society, i.e. public lands are to be used by everyone, and on public lands you only take what you need and leave for the next person, etc.
TreeDoc is offline  
Old October 19th, 2017, 01:34 PM   #26
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 808
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeDoc View Post
Is this not a discussion board? Is this not a discussion? You don't have to reply, let alone read anything I write. If you don't like that then too bad.
Ditto here. But, when you have a personal problem with me, you need to be taking it up with me, not jockeying for brownie points on a discussion board.
discollector is offline  
Old October 19th, 2017, 01:35 PM   #27
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 808
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeDoc View Post
Ones right to own arms comes from the 1689 English Bill of Rights, and that right can be limited, as it is with felons, military grade weaponry, etc. You can use as arms (anything that can be used as a weapon of sorts) to defend yourself, which could be a rock, your own hands, or anything you can grab, hold and/or swing, thereby striking someone.
Has no bearing on our First Principles since it was considered and rejected.
discollector is offline  
Old October 19th, 2017, 01:45 PM   #28
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 808
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
I don't see them as being natural at all. I have had the opportunity to work with some of our First Nations people, what were formerly called Indians. They do not see property as being owned by an individual for example. Or perhaps "did not see" would be a more valid statement but still a generalization these days.

The whole "life and liberty" thing too is a recent construct of man. Still under all kinds of religious influence, slavery and taking of lives was commonplace. It was a moral shift by some societies based on simple conscience that caused that shift. I guess if you want to call that natural OK, but it was a learned thing.
The Indians took lives - warring tribes and all, but that don't play into your narrative.

Then again, America was founded by white Christians and the principles our Constitution is based upon are those presuppositions found in the Holy Bible - which just happen to coincide with unalienable rights.

Where do you get YOUR Rights from?
discollector is offline  
Old October 19th, 2017, 01:46 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In a House
Posts: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
Ditto here. But, when you have a personal problem with me, you need to be taking it up with me, not jockeying for brownie points on a discussion board.
TreeDoc is offline  
Old October 19th, 2017, 01:50 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In a House
Posts: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
Has no bearing on our First Principles since it was considered and rejected.
Huh? When was the 1689 EBoR rejected?

Owning, the ability to personally own arms, was a right granted. All the quoting you did prior does nothing but admit to the ability to bear arms for the purpose of self defense or the defense of ones state. Owning arms doesn't equate to unconditional ownership of firearms, or any other weapon, of every stripe and nature, let alone an absolute right. The absolute right is your right to self defense, not to own or posses a weapon. The right to own a weapon came from the 1689 EBoR, prior to that only soldiers were allowed to posses weapons, i.e. swords, battle axe, etc. The common peasant or denizen was allowed only a small knife or wood chopping axe. As firearms came about, again only soldiers were allowed to posses them as they were the property of the State. In 1689, firearms and other weapons were then allowed to be owned by denizens/individuals, of which the law still limited what could be owned by an individual.

Last edited by TreeDoc; October 19th, 2017 at 02:21 PM.
TreeDoc is offline  
Closed Thread

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Philosophy and Religion > Philosophy

Tags
nature, rights



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is it nature or LongWinded Philosophy 3 September 13th, 2015 03:47 PM
Clinton, Obama Promote Gay Rights As Human Rights Around The World Mom Gay and Lesbian Rights 22 December 8th, 2011 02:40 PM
Gay Animals in Nature tristanrobin Gay and Lesbian Rights 14 April 19th, 2010 05:12 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.