What makes the RTKBA a Right?
- Thread starter Doug.38PR
- Start date
Another wonderful right, the right to believe whatever we want to believe. As the old line goes, I may not agree with what you have to say but I'd fight to the death for your right to say it!You just rebutted your own rhetorical question. The wolf has the natural right (as it were) to defend itself and it's den against other creatures. This doesn't guarantee success, however. Man is also part of nature, but his natural intelligence (over animals) allows him to make and use tools to defend himself against predators. He has the right to his own life, to defend it just as the wolf does, and the right to use any tools for his own survival.
Man is also the only creature who devises his own rules and submits to them voluntarily for mutual benefit. Unlike wolves, men must be reminded of the difference between man made rules and those of nature or God.
Whether you believe, as our forefathers did, in a deity or, you follow the "natural rights" concept, our laws and concept of government favor the rights of the individual over the powers of government.
Our government, and thus our laws, were forged on the hard anvil of experience with Kings, Viceroys, Governor-Generals, corruption and tyranny. Our constitution came about to prevent government from being the master of every man instead of being the servant.
That man is sapient, with intelligence to direct his own destiny, each man has a right to his life, to pursue his happiness, and a right to liberty.
A man's life is his own and he may not be forced into servitude, involuntarily conscripted, told what trades he may enjoy, prohibited in his associations nor required to attend a church, a meeting or any other gathering.
Liberty is beyond "freedom" as freedom denotes merely a lack of coerced actions, while liberty is the power to act as one chooses. It means people can live free, talk free. Come and go, buy or sell, be drunk or sober, however they choose.
This is the background and framework against which our Constitution and many of our laws were written. A read of the Constitution and BoR shows prejudice in favor of the liberty of the individual - requiring the government to justify its intrusion on a man's liberty - versus the absolute authority over citizens.
Given that our constitution seeks to permit the broadest liberty to its people, that the constitution was written following years of war for our independence, it would seem more than merely inconsistent that the right to arms would be enjoyed only by (state) governments, when those arms were indispensable in the fight for independence.
Our constitution does not grant a thing in the Bill of Rights. Each Amendment declares that the right exists, that it exists when a person is born and that government may not deny a person the right by any laws, decrees or pronoucements.
I don't really think I rebutted my own argument there because a right, be definition, is only something a human can conceive. Like all things relating to morality, it is purely a construct of the human mind. Without human beings to conceptualize the idea of rights they simply wouldn't exist. It's not like canines didn't have those rights until humanity evolved to the point that we were able to understand that concept.
LightningJoe
New member
The RKBA has to do with who made whom. The federal government was created by the states. When they did so, they were careful to make a written contract with their creature and they called this contract the Constitution. They surrendered to the federal government a finite number of powers. The power to infringe RKBA was not among them. In doing all this, the states made themselves representatives of American individuals.
This means that the victors in the Revolutionary War (represented by their respective states) were not willing to create a national government with the power to deprive them of their arms. That's the basis of RKBA: Guns are used to fight; having fought, victorious Americans earned the right to dictate their own terms; the 2nd Amendment was one of their terms.
In the years since then, the descendents of those victors and all the immigrants that have arrived have not enforced the terms of the contract the 18th century Americans imposed on the national goverment. The RKBA exists only because people with guns can fight and in so doing put themselves into a strong negotiating position. It's not a moral issue, it's purely practical. You have the RKBA if you say you do and can kill anybody who disagrees.
This means that the victors in the Revolutionary War (represented by their respective states) were not willing to create a national government with the power to deprive them of their arms. That's the basis of RKBA: Guns are used to fight; having fought, victorious Americans earned the right to dictate their own terms; the 2nd Amendment was one of their terms.
In the years since then, the descendents of those victors and all the immigrants that have arrived have not enforced the terms of the contract the 18th century Americans imposed on the national goverment. The RKBA exists only because people with guns can fight and in so doing put themselves into a strong negotiating position. It's not a moral issue, it's purely practical. You have the RKBA if you say you do and can kill anybody who disagrees.
Wildalaska
Moderator
American legend 101...actually you take a bunch of guys pissed off over money, toss in some high falutin theories from the scottish enlightenment and presto...instant country.
WildreadmoreAlaska
applesanity
New member
No, RTKBA is for the People. If you don't know about it yet, google "battle of athens."
As for this whole God-given bit....
The founding fathers consisted of quite a few Deists, or non-Deists who freely hung out with Deists. They were all raised on the Enlightenment. They were not Pat Robertson. Our rights, to them, were not so much a God-given thing, but more like part of the social contract we have created for ourselves upon forming civilization, as some other person already said. Assuming (and that's one very safe assumption) that the constitution and its bill of rights are very specifically-worded documents, do you really think that if they thought our rights were God-given, they wouldn't have said so?
"We hold these rights to be God-given...."
Our rights are no more a God-given privelege than than they are a State-granted privelege. They're just our rights. Shooting that would-be rapist full of lead is so very, very far from "turning the other cheek." RTKBA is not a religious edict.
a very cynical and superficial reading of history. No wonder you don't believe in anything beyond yourself.
Actually about the only one who some say is a "Deist" was Ben Franklin, but even his beliefs don't fall into line with what a Diest was. He believed in a God that was active in the affairs of men (hardly a deist). Thos. Jefferson's beliefs were, for most of his life anyway, to a large extent unorthodox with protestant Christianity, but certainly wasn't a deist.
The Founders actually rejected most of the teachings of the European enlightenment. George Bancroft said John Calvin was the virtual founder of America. The American colonists were HIGHLY influenced by the teachings of Calvin and the reformation. Ministers were some of the formost leaders of the war for independence. Their distrust of government reflected a low view and high distrust of man but still realizing the need of LIMITED law and order for the same reason.
The enlightenment taught that man was basically good and could be trusted with power. The Enlightenment produced the French Revolution, the Mexican Revolution and all those other "revolutions" that were pro anarchy and ant moral absolutes. Ministers of the church were some of the first beheaded and abolished permenantly from France. Those who had the most guns and the most hate of the establishment could shoot their way into power and behead the establishment leaders. Then turn around have themselves beheaded by another mob later.
Last edited:
Wildalaska
Moderator
Yep guess my degree is going to waste since I am so superficial.
I need to forget about critical thinking I reckon.
Funny I was going to say the same thing about the grade school history comments about the American revolution and the founding fathers I have seen so far in this thread> Why intejerject sholarship
WildgeorgewashingtoncutdownthecherrytreeAlaska
PS..I beleive in lots of things, most importantly, how to think for myself.....
scholarship? You? That line you gave was just a nutshell of hind end human waste. Shows 0 study of history or understanding of the men involved.
Heck, even an 7th grader has a better understanding than that (and I have a very low opinion of public schools that teach most 7th graders too)
A 5 year old can think for himself, but if he has no wisdom or experience or knowledge what good is it?
Heck, even an 7th grader has a better understanding than that (and I have a very low opinion of public schools that teach most 7th graders too)
A 5 year old can think for himself, but if he has no wisdom or experience or knowledge what good is it?
HarrySchell
New member
Right to keep and bear arms is a matter of self-defense, starting with the individual. Parker v. DC and the majority discussion quote succinctly to support that idea.
The Founders used the word "arms" as a term of art in philosophy and law that predated the Bill, and when use of firearms was widespread. In those cases, the "arms" were whatever an effective mechanism/tool of self-defense had to be to guarentee other rights. That firearms for the Founders and now are the most effective means to individual self-defense is incidental to the discussion.
In the future, phasers may replace my Kimber, but the concept of self-defense, individually or in cooperation with others (a militia), to secure my other rights in the Bill is independent of the technical change in tooling.
IMO NRA has it wrong, and is hurting their own cause by their lack of appreciation of what underlies the 2A.
The Founders used the word "arms" as a term of art in philosophy and law that predated the Bill, and when use of firearms was widespread. In those cases, the "arms" were whatever an effective mechanism/tool of self-defense had to be to guarentee other rights. That firearms for the Founders and now are the most effective means to individual self-defense is incidental to the discussion.
In the future, phasers may replace my Kimber, but the concept of self-defense, individually or in cooperation with others (a militia), to secure my other rights in the Bill is independent of the technical change in tooling.
IMO NRA has it wrong, and is hurting their own cause by their lack of appreciation of what underlies the 2A.
LightningJoe
New member
I don't think the Americans were pissed off over money. They were pissed off about not being treated like Englishmen. They really just wanted to get England to treat them with respect, but once they started fighting, there was nowhere to go. So, they declared independence. It was a longshot, but somehow it worked (GW perfected asymmetrical warfare and the Brits had other priorities so they cut their losses and evacuated).
Wildalaska
Moderator
LOL....nice try Mr. Adhominem. When you get this reading done Ill be back:
Brinton, Crane. The Anatomy of Revolution. Vintage Books: New York, 1965.
Lee, Susan. A New Economic View of American History From Colonial Times to 1940. Norton, 1994.
Weintraub Stanley. Iron Tears.
I got more, that should keep you busy for a while.
WildrememberthegodlikefoundingfathersownedslaveshadaffairsandpoopedliketherestofusAlaska
LightningJoe
New member
Wildman:
The Founders were pretty cool even if they did poop.
The Founders were pretty cool even if they did poop.
Hugh Damright
New member
I think Virginia was concerned about money ... the way I understand it, under the Articles, Virginia was paying the US taxes, but not every State was paying, and so we Virginians were concerned that we were throwing our money away ... and I think that the US were concerned about money because we had war debt and if we couldn't pay it then the US would lose all respect and credibility ... but if the need to act was financial, it still seems like the act was to form a stronger central government, with the intent being free government and the common good.
WA
Wild truly is the name for you, because that is indeed wild and out there.
If that three line crock of nothing you gave up at the top is, in a nutshell, all those books have to say you wasted your money. Or if they didn't and that's all you got out of them, then you have a real problem. You seem to delight in looking down and talking down on others both in history and on this forum for your own self image, WildwithalltheanswersAlaska or as you proclaim yourself "WildtheonetruegodAlaska"
Mr. Damnright,
To my understanding, the taxes (there were many, tea, stamps etc.) were not terribly high compared to England, but it was the principle that they were taxed at all. Parliment had no authority to tax the colonies only the British Isles, "hence Henry's statement Taxtation without representation is tyranny".
Wild truly is the name for you, because that is indeed wild and out there.
If that three line crock of nothing you gave up at the top is, in a nutshell, all those books have to say you wasted your money. Or if they didn't and that's all you got out of them, then you have a real problem. You seem to delight in looking down and talking down on others both in history and on this forum for your own self image, WildwithalltheanswersAlaska or as you proclaim yourself "WildtheonetruegodAlaska"
Mr. Damnright,
To my understanding, the taxes (there were many, tea, stamps etc.) were not terribly high compared to England, but it was the principle that they were taxed at all. Parliment had no authority to tax the colonies only the British Isles, "hence Henry's statement Taxtation without representation is tyranny".
Hugh Damright
New member
I mean after that, after the States had won their independence and formed the US under the Articles of Confederation ... the reason that the Articles failed and the Constitution was needed was, I believe, financial.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Thank you. Please dont sacrifice the virgins, just leave them at my altar
Thank you again. Some folks make it easy for me
WildpleasedontburntheofferringsmakethemmediumrareAlaska
The right of man to bear arms is justified by the same things which justify him to breath, learn, and grow old: he was born. The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, natural right. No amount of legislation to the contrary will change that, and the only thing which could conceivably encourage a person to think in such a way would be a fundamental divorce from the world around them which allows them to live in a civil society.
That's all the justification any man should need.
That's all the justification any man should need.