origin of the "right to keep and bear arms"

[agricola]

rennaissancemann,

aside from cordex's questions, yes, i am done - the thread has been dragged off topic now by those with their own biases and ludicrous contentions. To conclude from my POV, i think the case for the historical development of the RKBA (as opposed to the "natural right")out of the feudal duty to bear arms is overwhelming, as are the reasons for its enactment in the light of the Civil War and Rebellion.

with regards to the 2A providing arms for the people, my initial position was incorrect and it does seem that the 2A guarantees the individual right (albeit for the purpose of a collective duty - ie: to uphold the constitution against foreign and domestic foes) to keep and bear arms.

[Romulus]

with regards to the 2A providing arms for the people, my initial position was incorrect and it does seem that the 2A guarantees the individual right (albeit for the purpose of a collective duty - ie: to uphold the constitution against foreign and domestic foes) to keep and bear arms.

Then the Second would somehow have to be different from the other amendments in that it spells out a "collective duty" rather than an individual right...I don't think sooooooo...

[agricola]

romulus,

then explain the starting qualification?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

means surely that in order that the people be able to defend the constitution, that they have the right to be armed?

There is one point that the wholly individual right theorists fall down upon, and this is exactly that - why is that sentence there? If the framers did intend for it to be a wholly individual right, they could have removed the first sentence (as tamara explained in state constitutions) or left it to the states themselves as per the tenth amendment. Introducing the links to the fourth and fifth amendments is a dead end because those amendments do not have such a phrase added to them. It does acknowledge individual rights - but with the seventeenth century idea of the citizen militia as an inspiration, if nothing more.

[Romulus]

It is not a qualification...it is a prefatory prhrase, an introduction, a clarification, nevertheless a dependent clause...You hit the nail on the head when you said "in order that the may defend the constitution..." It doesn't say "to keep and bear arms...exclusively and for the sole purpose of defending the constitution" nor is that anywhere implied...

[Romulus]

This might help. Certainly more exhaustive than I can can come up with

http://www.virginiainstitute.org/pub...r_on_const.php

[agricola]

romulus,

i mean that is what the framers thought that the right would be best used for

[Romulus]

I have no problem with that as a general principle...the Constitution can be defended in many ways, including shooting and killing an armed intruder who, however ancillary to his coveting my goods, is willing to dispose with my right to life.

Now that you've come over from the dark side, Agricola, it's time to visit the States and hit the range

[agricola]

just to point out:

i) some of you are well wrong on socialism

ii) i still deny the "natural right" theory of RKBA

so lets not book the candlelit table just yet, eh romulus?

[Ben Swenson]

Forgive me for the tardy response, Agricola. I got home late from the gun show. A friend of mine bought a new S&W 629 Classic .44 mag with a 5" barrel and today I had to go out and shoot it with him. Heckuva time. Wish you could have been here.

Now, down to business. This thread is way too bloody long for me to get all of the unanswered questions, but I'll grab some that I noticed as I was catching up.

1. You claimed that the freedoms you have are equal to the freedoms we have.
You stated:

if you want to prove me wrong then you can bring it on

So I said:

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?

You also went on to say that you were just as free because a majority voted away the freedoms you lack.
So if a simple majority or perhaps even a plurality voted to transfer all media to government control with regulations on content and protesting the government, the people would be just as free because they decided it would be okay?

2. Tamara asked

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

3. Tamara asked

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

4. SW9M (and perhaps others) referred to your majority rule as "mob rule". That the many can control the few without checks and balances. How do you respond?

5. Zander asked

Again...when will your "right" to breathe, eat or procreate be deemed of "national importance" and thus worthy of regulation [funded by "contributions], sir?

Poorly asked, in my opinion, but put another way:
"What is the limit to what the government can decide is of 'national importance' and subsequently regulate and subsidize?"


And some new ones:

You said:

the NHS is mentioned because its an example of the people giving up something (in this case property - tax) in exchange for something (ie free healthcare) of their own free will

Everyone gives up their tax for this service of their own free will?
Can one opt out of paying tax for that particular service?

You said:

waiting lists were never an issue prior to the government allowing senior medical personnel (consultants mainly) to moonlight in the private sector.

So, people shouldn't be allowed to enjoy the fruits of their labour? They shouldn't be allowed to work for whatever they can earn on an open market? Or does this just apply to those trained in a certain discipline? Questions, questions.

Again, sorry for the late response. Hope you're having as good a day as I did.

[MeekAndMild]

please read what i actually said. in the natural world there are no laws, no morals, no codes, nothing. meek contended that humans in that condition were loving, tender creatures which in the light of history is blatantly untrue. i dont think that its "ok" to murder ones neighbour or anyone else, but only a fool would contend that man is the perfect peaceful being and ignore his tendencies for homicide

I hate to bring up anthropological and behavioral points to spoil an otherwise purely conjectural discussion.

The fact of the matter is that for the first 2.99 million of the 3 millon years that genus Homo has walked the earth there was a low density population of interbreeding groups. Exogamy is the only way that we have failed to evolve into multiple unreated species in that time.

While Aggie's concept of a bloody prehistory might have a certain appeal to those who learned all they know from fictionalists like Jean Auel the fact is that there was insufficient population to maintain any sort of prolonged strife. While there might have been rape and murder there is no way it could have been at all sustainable in a population where there was nowhere to go to hide from the retribution of kin folk.

On the subject of love, I think the Harlows fairly well proved in the 60's that primates which do not have basic skills in empathy, emotional comunication and love do not reproduce well. In the state of nature the energy intensive positive behaviors I mentioned would have long ago vanished were they not vital to the species.

OTOH the entire corpora of English Law could conceivably vanish with just ten years of bad weather and famine.

[MeekAndMild]

no laws, no morals, no codes, nothing

So leave it to the English to come up with something worse.

Seriously, Aggie, since you're a stickler for tradition and legalism, would you mind reading up Thomas Aquinas' work on natural law for a few weeks. Your stereotypal English Hobbes-ism upset my stomach.

[Blackhawk]

also the ad hominem bit was directed at Blackhawk,

Would you mind posting a quotation and page number where I made an ad hominem attack against you?

[agricola]

Cordex,

i) merely saying something that i might consider racist might not get you in trouble, but being racist towards someone that took offence may be - after all, all the rest of our rights are limited to the point at which they impinge upon someone elses, and the various bits of anti-racist legislation in the UK do recognize this. rights are as much about having the right not to have someone else abuse your rights as they are about the government not abuse your rights.

ii) if by "prior restraint" Tamara means prevention of a crime before the event and when one is sure that the crime will take place, then no - i have nothing wrong with that; nor do i have a problem per se with people against whom there is a real danger of being attacked being armed for their own defence (ie IRA / Unionist dissidents who are armed in NI)

iii) people have a neutral ability for "good" and "bad" actions, because what one person may consider a "good" action is almost always mirrored by another person considering it a "bad" action - remember the Palestinian reaction to the WTC? this confusion, as we are seeing, leads to more confusion over the "good" - "bad" issue, so IMHO this is a dead question, unless you accept that one viewpoint is always superior to another

iv) "Mob rule" is a phrase introduced by SW9M as an easy way of abusing our democracy. Checks and Balances exist in the UK system, as we all know - the two best governmental systems are yours and ours, for reason that they provide stability - the Courts, Lords and (god forbid) the House of Commons itself, whilst representing the people's wishes, do act as a brake upon some of the more "inspired" arguments - ie: the "Sarah's Law" campaign which was run by the News of The World paper.

v) the "right to breathe" argument by Zander can be disposed of quite easily because he, and you, assume that the Government decides what is, or what is not, good for the people. In the aftermath of Dunblane, and Hungerford, the overwhelming wish (as expressed at the ballot box) was that these weapons be legislated against to do all that was possible to prevent such events happening again (not "to reduce violent crime", as some here have contended). the plain and bare fact is, very very few people over here consider RKBA as a "natural right" (as opposed to self defence, which is considered a "right" here and is defended by the Courts)

vi) can one opt out of paying taxes? no - just as you cannot in any other state. besides, if you did, since the Ambulances are state funded via the NHS as well, you would have a long wait for your private BUPA ambulance. certain things are considered by a people to be vital to their interests - the army being the best example - and the NHS is considered as equal over here.

vii) people are allowed to work in an "open market"; but the problem is (as it is with pilots) is that people are (extremely well)trained by the State, then are taken by private concerns for a fraction of the amount paid to train them for their own concerns. how would you feel if you went down to your local police station and had to wait because the desk officer was seeing to "private" customers who were paying a fee for the priviledge?

meek,

there are good and bad points to your argument, and there is a debate in the anthropological community over human development using the contrasting societies of the Chimps and Bonobo great apes. I contend that we were like chimps, you probably consider us as developing in the Bonobo style

[Romulus]

Seriously, Aggie, since you're a stickler for tradition and legalism, would you mind reading up Thomas Aquinas' work on natural law for a few weeks. Your stereotypal English Hobbes-ism upset my stomach.

MandM, likewise...but some people spend a lifetime studying Aquinas...I doubt a few weeks will do. Maybe Marcus Tullius Cicero is an easier start for natural law, ius as opposed to lex:

"True law is right reason in accord with nature. Unchanging and everlasting, it is diffused among all men. It summons to duty by its commands, and deters from wrongdoing by its prohibitions. It does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, though neither has any effect on the wicked. To try to alter this law is forbidden by all that's holy, nor are we allowed to try to repeal any part of it, while to abolish it entirely is impossible. Neither the senate nor the people can free us from its obligations, nor need we look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. Nor will there be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law valid for all nations and all times. And there will be one master and ruler over us all, God, for he is author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself, and denying human nature, and by reason of this fact he will suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly called punishment."

Not bad for a pagan...

Agricola...you're a true believer - I still know some die-hard communists back in Italy...they won't give up no matter how patently bankrupt their ideology. We are not wrong on socialism.

[gburner]

Agricola,

Questions......

What sort of general national referrendum demonstrated a public will against personal ownership of fire arms in Great Britian afer the slaughter in Dunblain? How was the question worded? Were both sides given equal access to the media for the purposes of debate, discussion and fairness? Was the media an honest broker in the debate, that is did they report without taking sides. What were the voting percentages for and against the issue and what percentage of the public who was eligible to vote failed to do so?

I'm interested if there is a 'tyranny of the minority' in this.

[agricola]

gburner,

it was just before an election (1997) and was part of the Labour Party manifesto, there was no referendum (because referenda are subject precisely to those flaws that you point out).

you are flawed in your reasoning by saying:

"What sort of general national referrendum demonstrated a public will against personal ownership of fire arms in Great Britian afer the slaughter in Dunblain?"

because the law, as it stood, was only changed a very small amount - moving handguns from section 1 to section 5 of the Firearms Act, its been the case for at least 50 years that no firearms licence would be issued for "self defence" unless a clear threat presented itself, and from the debates in Hansard, at which all groups, including such luminaries of the anti-control movement as Colin Greenwood, were represented, as well as the anti-gun movement, police, shooter's rights organisations and so forth.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery...ff/95/9502.htm

[MeekAndMild]

I contend that we were like chimps, you probably consider us as developing in the Bonobo style

1)How do you explain the relative lack of sexual dimorphism in genus Homo as compared to Pan troglodytes? Homo is much more like Pan paniscus, also genetically more similar according to DNA studies.

2) Your entire analogy to Pan is false as that genus lacks sufficient ambulatory ability to develop the need to form instinctually tolerant groups which share resources.

3) Bushmen, Inuit, Australians and other wide ranging primitive subsistance tribes prove my point much better than chimps. Conflicts are consistantly minimized in the face of the need for exogamy and cooperation for survival tasks.

4) Romulus is right, Cicero would be a good start and Aquinus would take years to master, but Hobbes takes only an afternoon. Which just goes to illustrate the danger in allowing the ignorant to make laws impinging on free men's natural rights.

[MeekAndMild]

I contend that we were like chimps, you probably consider us as developing in the Bonobo style

On second thought maybe I'd better concede this one. The mental picture of a bewigged English jurist waiting impatiently for his daughters to come into estrus strikes me as hilarious.

[gburner]

Meek......you are too much. I'll be laughing about that for days. Next case....Queens Bench versus 'Hot Monkey Love.'

Agricola.....

You have not satisfactorily answered the questions presented. If I were the headmaster and you the pupil, you would earn a lecture and detention at the least and a caning at the worst. Quit quibbling and answer each question as it is written. The truth will set you free!

[Ben Swenson]

merely saying something that i might consider racist might not get you in trouble, but being racist towards someone that took offence may be - after all, all the rest of our rights are limited to the point at which they impinge upon someone elses, and the various bits of anti-racist legislation in the UK do recognize this. rights are as much about having the right not to have someone else abuse your rights as they are about the government not abuse your rights.

So if I was being derisive of a particular race of which, say, your wife or close friend happened to be a member ... would I be arrested?

Or, more directly, could you arrest me for expressing an ignorant opinion about the racial history of a particular individual? If so, how are you "just as free" as us?

people have a neutral ability for "good" and "bad" actions, because what one person may consider a "good" action is almost always mirrored by another person considering it a "bad" action - remember the Palestinian reaction to the WTC? this confusion, as we are seeing, leads to more confusion over the "good" - "bad" issue, so IMHO this is a dead question, unless you accept that one viewpoint is always superior to another

So you're arguing the concept of relative morals? Meaning, if I (or my society) believes one thing is good, and another thing is evil, my opinion is just as valid as what you think is good and evil? There are absolutely no absolutes?
That being the case, how can you consider an object "evil" or "good" and thus legislated?

For what it's worth, I do believe in absolute morals. There are some things that are absolutely wrong. That you consider objects good or evil based upon their potential for use (as measured by whom, exactly?) and a person neutral because values are relative is amusing to me.

Checks and Balances exist in the UK system

They certainly do. To a lesser extent.

you [...] assume that the Government decides what is, or what is not, good for the people. In the aftermath of Dunblane, and Hungerford, the overwhelming wish (as expressed at the ballot box) was that these weapons be legislated against to do all that was possible to prevent such events happening again (not "to reduce violent crime", as some here have contended). the plain and bare fact is, very very few people over here consider RKBA as a "natural right" (as opposed to self defence, which is considered a "right" here and is defended by the Courts)

His point stands. The government (acting as an agent of the people or not) can decide what is best for everyone. In the Dunblane aftermath, using an emotional issue, a voting majority was able to ban a neutral object and remove property from individuals because they felt it was "evil".

can one opt out of paying taxes? no - just as you cannot in any other state. besides, if you did, since the Ambulances are state funded via the NHS as well, you would have a long wait for your private BUPA ambulance. certain things are considered by a people to be vital to their interests - the army being the best example - and the NHS is considered as equal over here.

This directly conflicts with:

the NHS is mentioned because its an example of the people giving up something (in this case property - tax) in exchange for something (ie free healthcare) of their own free will

It is not necessarily "of their own free will" any more than (as you point out) payment for bloated military budgets are "of their own free will".

people are allowed to work in an "open market"; but the problem is (as it is with pilots) is that people are (extremely well)trained by the State, then are taken by private concerns for a fraction of the amount paid to train them for their own concerns. how would you feel if you went down to your local police station and had to wait because the desk officer was seeing to "private" customers who were paying a fee for the priviledge?

So they should sign a contract with the government to be trained and to offer five/ten/twenty years to NHS service. Simple.
But if I went to a private institution to learn medicine (as you have to in America), I would expect to be allowed to work where and when I could get hired. Same with becoming a pilot.
If my local police station was a privately owned concern, I would either pay the fee or walk out. TANSTAAFL

[SW9M]

I must ask you, is theTelegragh co uk a reliable news source?

[agricola]

cordex,

i)So if I was being derisive of a particular race of which, say, your wife or close friend happened to be a member ... would I be arrested?

possibly, although it would usually require that that person be present to be offended by the statement made;

ii)For what it's worth, I do believe in absolute morals. There are some things that are absolutely wrong. That you consider objects good or evil based upon their potential for use (as measured by whom, exactly?) and a person neutral because values are relative is amusing to me.

which sort of misses the point - despite your "absolute moral" system i would wager that there are certain events that are wholly "evil" that you would find "good" actions. besides, you are looking at it through your value-system, which is not going to provide the same answer as someone over here, with their own value system. after all, something like the RKBA is sort of loved over in the USA, despite there being people who would like to see it removed, the fact that it stays because of a "majority" opinion is the same thing (before we respond with the inevitable "its our constitutional right", remember the "legal" approach is the best one for gun-grabbers)

iii) So they should sign a contract with the government to be trained and to offer five/ten/twenty years to NHS service. Simple.
But if I went to a private institution to learn medicine (as you have to in America), I would expect to be allowed to work where and when I could get hired. Same with becoming a pilot.


they do have NHS contracts, however they know that they cannot be replaced and so using this knowledge forced the government into making their contracts wide enough so that they could do 50/0 public/private work. normally i would have no problem with this, except that these consultants are also the ones that bitch most when junior doctors or the nursing staff, who are woefully underpaid, talk about strike action to get a better deal - one rule for one, and one for another. besides, IMHO BUPA should also be made to pay for their time - they would if they were borrowing a CAT scanner, and this is the same thing.

iv) If my local police station was a privately owned concern, I would either pay the fee or walk out. TANSTAAFL

again you miss the point - the police station (read NHS hospital) is not a privately owned concern - you have already paid for it using taxes, and why should you pay more for the priviledge of using it?

gburner,

please stick to the topic instead of making stupid remarks

sw9m,

that paper is also known as the Torygraph - does that answer your question?

[agricola]

oh yes, and:

Cicero is the type of person who, without knowing his history, you would consider to be relevant to his debate.

The facts about the man are that he was a good lawyer, who was skilled at oratory and the creation of impressive arguments from a mixture of nonsense and dubious facts. When the man got into power, he used force to ensure his political ends, acted in contravention of even Roman law, defied those who pointed out his breaches of "their rights" (and in one case, threatened that person with death), attempted to pit the betters of his day against one another, and in the end paid the ultimate price for his politicking. He was, in short, a man who talked the talk, but in the end failed to walk the walk.

[SW9M]

that paper is also known as the Torygraph - does that answer your question?

No, could you elaborate, please.

[agricola]

its a paper that shows bias towards the Tory party, just as the Mirror and Guardian are biased towards Labour, and the Sun is biased towards White Van Man