What Does the Second Amendment Really Say?

[elbe]

It doesn't actually matter. I explained why earlier, as did the prestige. This line of argument might interest some, but simply trying to check Wild Cat in some seeming contradiction is a 'points scoring' exercise and tells us nothing new on the topic.

If it mattered, it would do the same (invalidate, support, whatever) to all the rights in the Bill of Rights. Think that through and decide if it's a good idea or not.

I'm only doing it because I want to know why the 18th didn't restrict anyone's rights.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The name calling is a winning tactic by the way.

Thanks, it infuriate my cousins.

 

[WildCat]

Government doesn't grant rights, only infringes on them, but the only rights we have are those explicitly enumerated? There appears to be a fault in your logic, could you please clarify?

9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Is it?

TIL. TY

 

[WildCat]

And who enumerated these rights? The authors of the Constitution.

Some go back to English Common Law, some were based on Enlightenment philosophy.

Why is it that some countries have no equivalent of the 2A? Did the authors of their constitutions carelessly overlook the right to bear arms when they were considering the list of natural rights?

Because the philosophy of those countries is that nobody has any rights except those which the government grants them. That's why there's people in UK jails for making offensive comments/jokes on Twitter for example.

'Rights' are a human construct, not an absolute, and the 2A is a reflection of the era in which it was written, hence the militia business. If not, why doesn't it just say "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"?

Because they wanted to be clear that the people have the right to keep and bear arms, not just government controlled militias. If they meant "the militia" they would have said "the militia".

 

[WildCat]

How are humans born with rights to begin with? If we don't have the right to pour any liquid we can obtain down our food-holes, how can we claim any other rights?

Irrelevant, if anyone writing the US Constitution was making that argument 230 years ago it lost out. That's why the Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people, it restricts the powers of government. You should read it, it's quite short. Here's a link: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights#amendmentx

 

[elbe]

10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Ignoring that that doesn't explicitly say anything about rights, what does that say about the 18th then? Is the sale and transport of alcohol a right or a privilege? More accurately, is selling and transporting goods a right or a privilege?

 

[WildCat]

I'm only doing it because I want to know why the 18th didn't restrict anyone's rights.

How can a right which never existed be restricted? If you notice the 21st Amendment didn't grant any rights either.

 

[elbe]

How can a right which never existed be restricted? If you notice the 21st Amendment didn't grant any rights either.

So we're back to rights only existing if they are explicitly enumerated?

 

[WildCat]

Ignoring that that doesn't explicitly say anything about rights,

See the edit, the 9th Amendment does that.

Are you not American? Your location implies you are from the Chicago area.

 

[elbe]

See the edit, the 9th Amendment does that.

Are you not American? Your location implies you are from the Chicago area.

I am, but I seem to have a better grasp of what the constitution actually says than you are demonstrating.

Let's look at the 9th, for example, which is far more useful than the 10th, but I see that you noticed that.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

That suggests that we do have rights not explicitly enumerated, but you have essentially argued that it can't be a right if it isn't explicitly listed. Here and Here. I'd like clarification beyond your waffling.

Is the selling and transport of goods a right?

 

[WildCat]

I am, but I seem to have a better grasp of what the constitution actually says than you are demonstrating.

Let's look at the 9th, for example, which is far more useful than the 10th, but I see that you noticed that.


That suggests that we do have rights not explicitly enumerated, but you have essentially argued that it can't be a right if it isn't explicitly listed. Here and Here. I'd like clarification beyond your waffling.

Is the selling and transport of goods a right?

Since you contend you know so much more about the US Constitution than me explain the difference between core rights and non-core rights.

 

[elbe]

Since you contend you know so much more about the US Constitution than me explain the difference between core rights and non-core rights.

Why would I make your argument for you? I don't claim to be an expert in any light, but your rationalizations are poor and confused.

Is the sale and transport of goods a right? You seem to be going an awful long way to argue that no amendment ever took away rights, even when the one example is known to be a mistake and overturned.

 

[soetkin]

Disclaimer: I'm not American therefore this following question.

How relevant is the second amendment in modern society? By that, I mean considering the size of the US military, how likely is it that militias would be needed to defend the country?

 

[elbe]

Disclaimer: I'm not American therefore this following question.

How relevant is the second amendment in modern society? By that, I mean considering the size of the US military, how likely is it that militias would be needed to defend the country?

The militia part is not, we don't do that anymore, but since the courts have ruled that the right exists despite the militia clause it's as relevant as anyone who wants to own a gun wants it to be.

Since I don't own a gun, nor will I ever choose to, it's about as relevant to me as the 3rd amendment. To many others, however, they enjoy the benefits of gun ownership (hunting, sport, collecting, protection, etc.)

 

[newyorkguy]

Is carrying a handgun for self defense a basic human right? Should it be?

When I think of basic human rights I think of speech, assembly, equal opportunities or access for housing and jobs, no arbitrary arrests or imprisonment. Protection against slavery or torture. Being secure in their person, yes, but I'm not sure that means the right to carry a handgun.

 

[DavidJames]

Is carrying a handgun for self defense a basic human right? Should it be?

When I think of basic human rights I think of speech, assembly, equal opportunities or access for housing and jobs, no arbitrary arrests or imprisonment. Protection against slavery or torture. Being secure in their person, yes, but I'm not sure that means the right to carry a handgun.

The subject of basic (or fundamental) human rights has been discussed many times here and is off topic for this thread. However, if people want to pretend they exist and think owning a gun should be included, feel free, but if society disagree's then that right is meaningless.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Since you contend you know so much more about the US Constitution than me explain the difference between core rights and non-core rights.

And the goal posts go that way - - - - - ->

 

[BStrong]

Disclaimer: I'm not American therefore this following question.

How relevant is the second amendment in modern society? By that, I mean considering the size of the US military, how likely is it that militias would be needed to defend the country?

The SCOTUS decision in Heller laid the issue out plainly: an individual not in the prohibited class of individuals has a right to possess a firearm in the home for the purposes of self defense, not coupled any way to militia service or other (sport hunting recreational shooting) activies.

The SCOTUS decision in Mcdonald incorporated the right onto the States through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, which is why the ongoing 2nd Amendment cases are originating in cities, counties and states.

 

[BStrong]

Ignoring that that doesn't explicitly say anything about rights, what does that say about the 18th then? Is the sale and transport of alcohol a right or a privilege?

More accurately, is selling and transporting goods a right or a privilege?

First Bolded: The sale and manufacture of alcohol is taxed and regulated by (in order) the Feds, the State, The County, and the City.

It's is by anyone's estimation a privilege as an individual must be licensed to manufacture or sell the item in question (with some small allowances for the manufacture of limited quantities for personal use...almost like manufacturing a non-NFA firearm for personal use w/o license or markings, which is legal under federal law)

Second Bolded: Depends entirely on the goods in question. Selling tie-dyed shirts at a garage sale, probably legal w/o a business license.

Selling tie-dyed T-shirts at a Phish concert w/ the Phish logo w/o permission, probably illegal.

Making candles at home for sale? probably need licensing and inspection by the locality in question to make sure the manufacturing was being done in accordance with safety regulations.

Transporting goods you manufacture from one place to another? probably legal. Transporting something that you're being paid to transport as a business? licensing and insurance and who knows what all applies.