origin of the "right to keep and bear arms"

[agricola]

meek/blackhawk,

it has long been a "natural" thing for man to kill another man. in the "wild", with all civilization and law removed, you have as much "right" to club your neighbour to death as you do to share your food with him because there is no convention. or, meek, is human history one of "Empathy, altruism, protection of self and kin group defined the limits of methods of behavior"? "man" has almost always had someone he wants to kill.

the establishment of a society requires that its members choose their laws that they wish to live under. early societies saw that they required to band together for their common defence; and that they could possess arms in that purpose (see athens, sparta, rome, japan) - few such societies enshrine the right of persons to go about armed . to me this suggests that the idea of "RKBA for individual self defence" is not something that is evidenced in the historical record to any extent until the seventeenth century.

the legal "self defence" defence has always existed in the law and is not the same as RKBA, although some here would fervently wish it to be.

The only basis for the Second Amendment that relates in any way to English law is that the Framers wanted no part of any laws that violated the truths we, in this country, still hold to be self-evident. Citizens have rights, subjests still have none.

but arent some of the BoR's amendments taken almost word-for-word from the 1689 BoR? This is part of the reason why debating here is so difficult; many of you assume that the UK is still that of 1789, wheras we liberated ourselves long ago and using different, "socialist" means. We have our own conceptions of "rights", and as shown by the comments about the NHS, they are as alien to you as RKBA is to many of us. That doesnt make them any more or any less valid, its simply the result of the choices that a community freely makes for the way it wants to live, however strange or annoying that is to the people on the other side of the water.

[Tamara]

you also have a "natural right" to bash a neighbour over the head with that rock and kill him, or do whatever you want - since in our "natural" state there are no laws or methods of behaviour.

"Naturally" picking up a stick (bearing arms) and "naturally" dashing a man's brains out with it for no reason (committing murder) are separated by an important distinction. If you are not able to see that distinction, I have to wonder if you have set yourself on the right career path...

[agricola]

tamara,

i guess you were typing that whilst i posted that stuff above. in one's "natural" state, there are no laws, codes of behaviour, ethics or morals. there is nothing to prevent you from doing whatever you wish aside from your own whims. it is true freedom but life is nasty, brutish and short. society limits these "freedoms". a state cannot be "natural" if you ascribe to it any rules or preconcieved ideas of right and wrong behaviour - thats when the "natural" being is turned into the "social" being

[ahenry]

...ie: that the "natural right" to keep and bear arms is bogus and that this is a historical creation to a given set of circumstances that grew from the "militia" feudal concept.

HAHAHAHAH, HOHOHOHOHOHOH, HEHEHEHEHEHEHEH Pardon me while I fall out of my chair laughing. That is the most inane thing I have seen you post yet (and thats going some). Really Agricola, feel free to think that you have no “natural right” to own and use arms, I really don’t care. In fact, if there was a gun handling competency requirement based solely on ones ability to grasp the meaning and intent of an individual from their own written words, then I would go so far as to say you most assuredly shouldn’t own or use arms, as you clearly lack the ability to fulfill the former. I would suggest that you not try to claim that you understand our Forefathers better than those of us that have grown up reading about them and studying their words. That would just make you look like a sophomoric jackass...

I will now return to watching your continual attempts to knock over brick walls with your exceedingly hard head. It really is enjoyable. Thank you sir, for the entertainment.

[Tamara]

Okay, let's assume that your hypothetical magick perfect government controls all bricks, sticks and kerbstones. We still posess dangerously lethal hands and feet which can be used to strangle and bludgeon the innocent to death. How, pray tell, does man the social animal intend to control these natural weapons? Or is it "actions" that should be sanctioned and not "objects"?

[Ben Swenson]

What follows is personal opinion and does not speak for anyone else unless by some strange quirk they happen to share my views on a particular subject.
<Personal Opinion>
Self defense against someone who is unjustly initiating force is an absolutely moral action, and is recognized as such in most societies.

Initiating force - or, put in Webster's words, "violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing" - separate from a justified response to previously initiated force - be it with a rock, a rifle or a government issued submachine gun, is an absolute wrong. I use 'force' as a very broad term, in this context.

Legal rights are not universal, natural or God given (unless you currently enjoy the legal right and believe that it was given by a divine being). However, like the ability to worship a chosen deity in a manner not initiating force on another individual, the ability to own and use a firearm (or personal vehicle, or book, or sex toy, or lawnmower, etc.) is present in a free society and is in itself a mark of freedom. Lack of this legal ability is a mark of oppression - whether or not the majority desires it. (Remember, minorities can be oppressed too ...)

Beyond the use of "right" to describe a legal status ...
Could an individual lay a just and fair claim to the ownership of a firearm? Certainly. Thus, it is a "right" in the purest sense of the word. But what about Agricola's national subsidized health care? Is that a "right" beyond the legal claim to a service in his society?
No. However nice and it may seem for the needy party, it is not just to demand that others must take care of you.
</Personal Opinion>

Thank you for humoring me.

Now, for some fun info to look at with regards to the grammatical structure and literal meaning of the Second Amendment:
http://www.arr.org/wtp/RKBA/Analyzed_2nd.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill...015/page2.html
http://adams.patriot.net/~tlj/xplaindp.htm#point4

[Tamara]

In response to your request for sources on the Joyce Lee Malcolm book, I will be happy to send you a copy on my dime if you provide me an address via PM. As you enjoy English history, you should find it an interesting and entertaining read, and can then debate its contents from a position of strength.

[agricola]

tamara,

actions are regulated, but there are some objects that because of their ability to do bad things to people have to be regulated as well -

do you support driving licences? should pilots be allowed to fly since they have a "natural right" to do so without the evil state limiting their "natural rights" by demanding training, or preventing them from flying if they dont toe the line? perhaps refuse should be dumped anywhere, because its a persons "natural right" to dispose of his property in the way that he or she feels fit. some objects must be controlled by a society because of the dangers they pose in the wrong hands.

ahenry,

if you have nothing constructive to say then please return under whatever rock you crawled out from.

[Tamara]

but there are some objects that because of their ability to do bad things to people have to be regulated as well -

Objects have no ability to do bad things to people. Objects are inert and have no life of their own.

I have spent the last 16 years of my life around loaded guns, cars full of gasoline, butane lighters, fireworks, & et cetera. Not a one of them has ever spontaneously decided "to do bad things to people". Perhaps things are different there?

do you support driving licences? should pilots be allowed to fly since they have a "natural right" to do so without the evil state limiting their "natural rights" by demanding training, or preventing them from flying if they dont toe the line? perhaps refuse should be dumped anywhere, because its a persons "natural right" to dispose of his property in the way that he or she feels fit.

"No", "Yes", and "As long as it's on your own property". Never assume that what's an obvious rhetorical statement to you is the same to everyone else.

[ahenry]

Well Mr. Cola,

It is perhaps worthwhile to note that one of the reasons, in fact I would contend the primary reason, that us knuckle-draggers on this side of the pond left you sophisticated types on that side of the pond was because we believe that the right to various “things” (among the list being RKBA) is indeed a natural one bestowed by a Supreme Being. Discovering that you super intelligent types over there still don’t know this, is somewhat distressing. Here I had hopes that one day you to might be free. Ah it would appear that it is not to be.

(There, now will you let me stay, oh grand pubah?)

BTW, I wouldn’t want you to argue from a position of ignorance so I’ll fill you in. I very rarely crawl, and I’m never to be found under a rock.

[Blackhawk]

in one's "natural" state, there are no laws, codes of behaviour, ethics or morals. there is nothing to prevent you from doing whatever you wish aside from your own whims.

If you [agricola] have a whim to bash me [Blackhawk] in the head, there IS something to prevent you from doing that, and it has NOTHING to do with YOUR whims.

What to know what it is?

It's ME.

For you to act out your whim to kill me, you're going to have to get through me first.

Not only that, but if you get a whim to bash somebody else in the head, you're going to have to go through me to do it, because I can't abide somebody who doesn't naturally respect another being's natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

BTW, I've got friends, lots of them, who think the way I do.

Don't go wailing about my not legally being able to own the implements to thwart your attack. I don't live by your rules, and I don't recognize your silly laws. Your attack will be met with what I will, and you don't need to bother bringing your lunch. You won't need it....

Now, do you want to think again about your whim to bash somebody...?

(Is anything starting to sink into that mind of yours yet...? )

[Ben Swenson]

do you support driving licences?

You mean a license that controls an action (driving on public property)? Driving a personally owned vehicle on private property is not and should not be controlled.

should pilots be allowed to fly since they have a "natural right" to do so without the evil state limiting their "natural rights" by demanding training, or preventing them from flying if they dont toe the line?

A bit rambly ... but it looks like you're asking about restricting an action (flying in airspace you don't own).
I don't know if one can fly in one's own airspace without a license and training in anything but an Ultralight - but you should be able to.

perhaps refuse should be dumped anywhere, because its a persons "natural right" to dispose of his property in the way that he or she feels fit.

Again, an action (dumping waste on someone elses property).
Do with your own land what you like, but not that which belongs to others.

some objects must be controlled by a society because of the dangers they pose in the wrong hands.

You didn't even touch on this.
You made an argument for the control of actions that could harm others. Not objects.

[agricola]

cordex/tamara,

is it possible to fly without use of a flying-machine (including balloons)? the action is only possible with the inanimate object, just as shooting someone is very difficult without the inanimate object that you shoot with - objects do have the ability to do bad things when in the "wrong hands" and certain objects potential for "good" actions is offset by their potential for "bad" actions

ahenry,

what supreme being is this? are the americans the new "chosen people" that the Lord has deemed to live the perfect life so that others across the world may live according to His teachings? :barf:

blackhawk,

if we can get off the high horse, you would notice that in the "natural" order of things as proposed there are no laws so Don't go wailing about my not legally being able to own the implements to thwart your attack. I don't live by your rules, and I don't recognize your silly laws. Your attack will be met with what I will, and you don't need to bother bringing your lunch. You won't need it.... simply shows how much you are not reading what i post because its irrelevant - in the "natural" state of things there are no laws. Also i have no personal wish to kill you, or indeed anyone, but that would have been evident if you had actually read it.

but no doubt this will be met by more of the "well we kicked the redcoats out", "sheeple" "they are all serfs/subjects" type BS, which convieniently ignores the fact that, despite not having a showy piece of paper to base our entire being upon, acting in a class structure that was far more entrenched than the US, using "socialist" methods like the Unions and the old Labour movement, we "freed" ourselves and made our own decisions. We are just as free as you, and if you want to prove me wrong then you can bring it on

[Blackhawk]

We are just as free as you, and if you want to prove me wrong then you can bring it on

Okay, here it comes. Ready?

I am free to go to any of dozens of retailers within 15 minutes of here and buy almost any firearm of my choice, including handguns, rifles, or shotguns, plus any amount of ammunition, and take my selections home with me.

Can you do the same?

No?

Then you are NOT just as free as me, are you?

[SW9M]

objects do have the ability to do bad things when in the "wrong hands" and certain objects potential for "good" actions is offset by their potential for "bad" actions

That's why our founding fathers and most of our laws seek to deter "actions". Actions are what infinges on the rights of others. Not the object. Am I infringing on others by walking around with a handgun under my shirt? No. So why should their be laws keeping me from doing so?

You say their are no naturnal laws. Well, I will disagree. The natural law that offers consequences for the infringement of other's rights works to keep a society civil. The swifter the consequences the more civil the society. What is that naturnal law? The natural desire to be free from oppresion. From my neighbor or from my government.

but no doubt this will be met by more of the "well we kicked the redcoats out", "sheeple" "they are all serfs/subjects" type BS

That's why this country exists. We chose to not live under draconian laws. That's the basis for our founding fathers actions. So get over it. You started this topic by saying we were wrong. Well, we had this disagreement a couple hundred years ago. Looks like we still have the same mind sets.

If you can't handle the heat, you shouldn't have started the fire.

[Ben Swenson]

is it possible to fly without use of a flying-machine (including balloons)? the action is only possible with the inanimate object, just as shooting someone is very difficult without the inanimate object that you shoot with - objects do have the ability to do bad things when in the "wrong hands" and certain objects potential for "good" actions is offset by their potential for "bad" actions

Well, Sir, 'round here you can buy, build and own what is called an "Ultralight" aircraft that are under a certain weight limit, which can be flown without any license. If you don't train to fly one, you will die ... which is your prerogative.

I think we're back to where we started. You think that objects are inherently good or bad (based on "potential for 'bad' actions") whereas most of us see objects as ... well ... objects. Neutral, really.

We are just as free as you, and if you want to prove me wrong then you can bring it on

Really? Okay, so what if I'm walking around London and say something that you consider racist? Do I get a dirty look or do I get cuffed and dragged away? Yes, there are dispicable elements that use freedom. However, if you just allow freedoms that you agree with, those who disagree with you really aren't free, are they?

"Just as free". *chuckle*

You guys may be close, but certainly not "just as free".

[Tamara]

the action is only possible with the inanimate object, just as shooting someone is very difficult without the inanimate object that you shoot with

You are again missing the point. It is not "shooting" somebody that is the crime. You cannot be sent to prison for "shooting" a man. You can, however, be sent to prison for injuring or killing a man, and whether that injury or death was perpetrated with a gun, knife, anvil, banana or whatever should be immaterial.

- objects do have the ability to do bad things when in the "wrong hands"

Unless you live in some demon-haunted world "objects" do not have the ability to perform actions.

and certain objects potential for "good" actions is offset by their potential for "bad" actions

So, you don't have a problem with the concept of prior restraint, I take it?

Do certain people have a greater potential for "bad" actions than "good" ones? Do you favor prophylactically doing something about them?

[gburner]

Agricola,

Your obvious obsession with apparently attempting to bait others in this forum is becoming tedious.
If you find, as you previously stated, that our practices here are 'strange and annoying', why do you persist in torturing yourself in debating a subject that is clearly beyond your ability or desire to comprehend? Why not just leave it alone?

You are correct about one thing.....
life can be nasty, brutish and short. To counteract this trend, we have, through the blessings of a generous and merciful God, the right
to 'life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.' To insure that this right and all others are not the domain of some despotic ruler or other criminal element, we have the right to keep and bear arms. It's just that simple.

[agricola]

blackhawk,

My government cannot detain me indefinately without trial and in contravention of law. Can yours?

then you are not as free as me, are you?

[agricola]

gburner,

Your obvious obsession with apparently attempting to bait others in this forum is becoming tedious.
If you find, as you previously stated, that our practices here are 'strange and annoying', why do you persist in torturing yourself in debating a subject that is clearly beyond your ability or desire to comprehend? Why not just leave it alone?

i would stop posting stuff like this up (which is not trying to bait people (after all these are discussion forums) if people stopped posting frankly idiotic posts up about the UK.

tamara......if you shoot at someone, and miss, isnt that attempted murder? certainly it is over here.

[gburner]

So your motivation in posting is not the open exchange of ideas and opinions but as a response to a preceived slight that you suffered regarding 'idiotic posts about the UK'.

That would make you a troll, and a rather unsufferable one at that.

[Blackhawk]

My government cannot detain me indefinately without trial and in contravention of law. Can yours?

then you are not as free as me, are you?

No, it cannot. We've got that thingy called the 5th Amendment to our Constitution. Oh, I'm sorry. That's unfair of me. I forgot you don't even HAVE a constitution....

You never did prove that death is inevitible after being challenged on your statement that "all will die" included with your hissy fit post.

And you never answered your own comparative freedom challenge to me when I asked if you, like I, could just go buy firearms and take them home.

But this one's the real corker! You're arguing 2A issues in this thread with your "over there" mentality and lack of skill with the English language as shown by your inability to grammatically construe the 2A correctly, and then you show abysmal ignorance of the 5A by showing that you believe that incarceration without due process is legal in the U.S.

You really should come to these jousts better prepared, especially ones that you start. One is liable to think that you're just another troll....

[agricola]

gburner,

no, you obviously did not read the fact that these are discussion forums ie: that matters like this can be discussed here. besides, as for the "open exchange of ideas and opinions", i do that when people post lies up about the UK. if that is trolling, then i am a troll.

besides its not like you've taken any part in the debate at all, aside from one post - or does an "open exchange of ideas and opinions" mean that i accept totally your point of view and acknowledge mine as flawed?

[agricola]

blackhawk,

who is that padilla chap again?

i also guarantee that you will die. unless, of course, you have special dispensation from God in which case please tell us of this.

[Tamara]

How's that "preventative custody" program working out? And did they ever return y'all's protection against double jeopardy, or can you still be tried multiple times for the same offense if the gov't doesn't like the first outcome? Anyone have your DNA on file yet?