Should we repeal the 2nd Amendment?

[arthwollipot]

Ah, well, that's a whole different discussion, isn't it? The fact remains that the wording of the second amendment supposes the right to bear arms already exists. In any discussion regarding repealing or amending that right, that fact, and the source of the supposed right prior to the second amendment, should form part of the discussion.

I suspect that people today pay a whole lot more attention to the precise phrasing than its author did.

 

[arthwollipot]

I doubt that Jefferson would take credit for those rights coming from him.

Does that matter? He was the one who wrote it down.

 

[jt512]

I posted your words not what I think you meant. You said "A right is inherent, axiomatic. It doesn't "come from" anywhere."
I asked "which rights?" in post 628 as you seem to have missed it, and gave some examples for you to think about.

Thank you for acknowledging that your initial statement was too broad, and for clarifying you don't believe there is an absolute right to bear arms. This takes us back to what I was asking 20ish posts ago. Where does that right come from? If as argued the 2nd amendment didn't create the right it only recognises it existed, where did the right first arise?

What I think is a right in 2024 has nothing to do with what the founders thought was a right in 1776. According to them, there is a right to keep and bear arms. Rights don't come from anywhere. That's why they are rights rather than privileges. Privileges are granted, rights are inherent.

 

[arthwollipot]

What I think is a right in 2024 has nothing to do with what the founders thought was a right in 1776. According to them, there is a right to keep and bear arms. Rights don't come from anywhere. That's why they are rights rather than privileges. Privileges are granted, rights are inherent.

Does the fact that they had to write an Amendment to ensure that the right to bear arms should not be infringed suggest anything to you about the status of that right before the Amendment was written?

 

[jt512]

To poke at this for just a moment, this somewhat harks back to the natural rights and legal rights discussion.

More broadly, though -

Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.[1] Rights are of essential[citation needed] importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology.

Thanks for posting that. As is painfully obvious, I am no philosopher; otherwise, I would have written something along the lines of the above (and I would also probably know what "deontology" is).

 

[jt512]

I am not making an argument. I am trying to understand one. I am trying to understand where the right to bear arms comes from.

I ask again, where does the right to life "come from"? (And, no Arth, it did not come from Thomas Jefferson.)

 

[jt512]

The framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights were students of the Enlightment. In the natural order, everyone has a right to self-defense. "Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." They understood through history and experience that tyrants always seek to disarm the people.

No, because everyone has different wishes. Is there a right to discriminate on race? I don't know how there can be a right without a consensus or as you put it "getting together with people who share your beliefs, and imposing them on society in whatever way you deem proper".
When did that happen allowing the 2nd amendment writers to recognise that the right existed.

And that wasn't the argument that was made. Thank you for revealing your disingenuousness.

 

[arthwollipot]

I wasn't going to say it.

And you should probably take a brief look at what deontology means. It's relevant to this discussion.

 

[jt512]

Does that matter? He was the one who wrote it down.

It doesn't matter who wrote it.

 

[jt512]

Does the fact that they had to write an Amendment to ensure that the right to bear arms should not be infringed suggest anything to you about the status of that right before the Amendment was written?

Yes. It implies that the right was pre-existing.

 

[jt512]

I wasn't going to say it.

And you should probably take a brief look at what deontology means. It's relevant to this discussion.

I can barely comprehend what "epistemology" is, never mind "ontology," much less "deontology."

 

[erwinl]

Yes. It implies that the right was pre-existing.

I'm not so sure it does, though.

Or else the 13th and 19th amendments would never have been necessary. In that case it only needed to be looked at the 9th amendment.

Yet, the 13th and 19th were still found to be needed. Which would mean that the 9th, was not applicable to the people that the 13th and 19th concerned.

Which would mean the same thing with the 2nd, wouldn't it?

 

[Lothian]

What I think is a right in 2024 has nothing to do with what the founders thought was a right in 1776. According to them, there is a right to keep and bear arms. Rights don't come from anywhere. That's why they are rights rather than privileges. Privileges are granted, rights are inherent.

I ask again, where does the right to life "come from"? (And, no Arth, it did not come from Thomas Jefferson.)

This thread is about legal rights. Particularly the legal right to own guns. That has nothing to with the rights to life and which have no force.

Legal rights are not inherent. They need to be given and they can be withdrawn.

 

[Lothian]

And that wasn't the argument that was made. Thank you for revealing your disingenuousness.

You quote a post by Trausti then a reply by me and complain I haven't addressed his argument and call me disingenuous.

However the reply by me, as you well know, was to thepresiige. It was his post I quoted and was addressing. I did answer Trausti's post elsewhere but it was not with the text you quoted.

What word would you use to describe yourself who cut and pasted different conversations to try to make me look bad? Perhaps a word for someone dishonest and insincere?

 

[Lothian]

So you do understand my argument. You just don't agree with it. And it's a disagreement from belief. I believe rights originate in the beliefs of an individual. You believe rights originate in the authority of the collective.

I think you're mistaken in your belief, by the way. I think a close examination would reveal to you that you believe certain truths about human rights to be self-evident, regardless of how many people disagree with you, and regardless of how much power they have to enforce their disagreement against you.

You are right I certainly do have my own beliefs and have my own truths.
I don't believe that those beliefs are shared universally and I don't believe they are rights. That is why I think rights need to be formally agreed in order to have legal force over a population.

I honestly believe that wealth taxes for the super rich should be higher. I think it self evident some people have more money than they need and could ever spend and that money could be used to make many lives better. That does not give me or anyone else the right to strip them of their wealth unless my new tax rates are codified and agreed.

 

[arthwollipot]

It doesn't matter who wrote it.

No, it doesn't, only that someone did.

Yes. It implies that the right was pre-existing.

Has it always existed? Was there a time when there wasn't a right to bear arms? When was that?

 

[jt512]

This thread is about legal rights. Particularly the legal right to own guns. That has nothing to with the rights to life and which have no force.

Legal rights are not inherent. They need to be given and they can be withdrawn.

Regardless, the amendment reads, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms...." The right can only mean either a right previously referred to or a right considered universal. Unless you can point to some written instance of a right to bear arms that "the" right of the 2A is referring to, you can only logically conclude that the authors of the 2A considered the right axiomatic.

 

[jt512]

You quote a post by Trausti then a reply by me and complain I haven't addressed his argument and call me disingenuous.

However the reply by me, as you well know, was to thepresiige. It was his post I quoted and was addressing. I did answer Trausti's post elsewhere but it was not with the text you quoted.

What word would you use to describe yourself who cut and pasted different conversations to try to make me look bad? Perhaps a word for someone dishonest and insincere?

JT's First Law of Internet Forms: The amount of serious consideration a post is due is inversely proportional to the area of the post occupied by smileys, emojis, and animated gifs.

 

[Lothian]

JT's First Law of Internet Forms: The amount of serious consideration a post is due is inversely proportional to the area of the post occupied by smileys, emojis, and animated gifs.

You get caught out doctoring quotes and this is your response

 

[jt512]

You get caught out doctoring quotes and this is your response

To reiterate JT's First Law: "The amount of serious consideration a post is due is inversely proportional to the area of the post occupied by smileys, emojis, and animated gifs."