PDA

View Full Version : Rights of a society to decide


Sane
04-20-2011, 3:39 PM
A family member of mine frequents this site. I am not opposed to firearms!

My question is as follows.

Many of you feel you have the right to have any firearm YOU want. As a society, don't you think we all have right to administer rules and regulations regarding firearm ownership? How it is to be used, what type of firearms can be bought and sold, and a checks and balance system to make sure only law abiding people can obtain them?

My case is this, travel is also an enumerated right and yet there are still travel restrictions placed on the interstate traveler.

dantodd
04-20-2011, 3:43 PM
What restrictions are placed on interstate travel? Do you think society should be able to limit free speech our religious exercise I'm similar ways?

Sane
04-20-2011, 3:48 PM
Traveling restrictions include what you can and can't bring into another state whether it be train, plane or auto. Let's also bring up how one must subject themselves to security at airports.

Sane
04-20-2011, 3:51 PM
What restrictions are placed on interstate travel? Do you think society should be able to limit free speech our religious exercise I'm similar ways?


Our speech is limited in some ways and legally. Don't you find it interesting that in order to be a certified religion you must register as a religion for tax purposes?

Mesa Tactical
04-20-2011, 3:54 PM
Many of you feel you have the right to have any firearm YOU want. As a society, don't you think we all have right to administer rules and regulations regarding firearm ownership? How it is to be used, what type of firearms can be bought and sold, and a checks and balance system to make sure only law abiding people can obtain them?

Sure, society decides whatever rights and privileges it wants. But there are a couple problems with what you suggest.

First, any time you attempt (in a nominally free society) to limit the activities of members, there should be a burden of proof as to the efficacy of the proposed restrictions. Again and again it has been clearly proven that prohibitions do not work, or at least they don't seem to have the (stated) desired result. This forum is about gun prohibitions, but the same arguments apply to all others. If people want something, merely enacting a prohibition has little effect except to criminalize the users of the prohibited item. And when the (stated) objective of the prohibition is to keep the item out of the hands of criminals in the first place, the prohibition is borderline insane. That's gun control in a nutshell.

Secondly, what is society? Majority rule? Since there is very little in human life on which all members of society can agree, any move to restrict the activities of members is likely to to be opposed, often quite vehemently, by a small or large minority of the membership. So what happens is often large proportions of society are disenfranchised because a slightly larger proportion of society has the votes to get away with it.

Again, society can do whatever it wants, but please don't dress it up as justice.

Don't you find it interesting that in order to be a certified religion you must register as a religion for tax purposes?

Since government is deciding who is eligible for the tax subsidy, then government will have to come up with some objective criteria for awarding it. But government is not defining what is and what is not a religion.

Bold idea: get rid of the tax subsidy for religions and get the government out of the religion-defining business.

halifax
04-20-2011, 3:54 PM
Apparently the founding fathers didn't agree with you.

dantodd
04-20-2011, 3:58 PM
Traveling restrictions include what you can and can't bring into another state whether it be train, plane or auto. Let's also bring up how one must subject themselves to security at airports.

You are comparing being stripped of the fundamental right to self-defense with the non-right to import fruit into California? As for airport security, there is a difference between the right to travel and the right to travel via airline. Additionally, some if the ridiculous TSA abuse may well be unconstitutional.

curtisfong
04-20-2011, 3:58 PM
As a society, don't you think we all have right to administer rules and regulations regarding firearm ownership?

The constitution enumerates rights that cannot be abridged, no matter what you FEEL is "right" or "wrong".

Some are incorporated against the states, some are not.

There are also varying levels of scrutiny, depending on if a right is fundamental or not (amongst other factors).

Until you understand both of those issues, what you "feel" is right is totally irrelevant.

Californio
04-20-2011, 3:58 PM
Rights of Society:confused:

Society has the Right to Amend the Constitution and the Rules for doing so are enumerated in the Constitution.

Until then

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, based on the concept of Natural Rights.

Natural Rights that existed before Society and supersede it.

dantodd
04-20-2011, 3:59 PM
Our speech is limited in some ways and legally. Don't you find it interesting that in order to be a certified religion you must register as a religion for tax purposes?

You don't have to register yo vw a religion. You have to register if you want special treatment.

Sane
04-20-2011, 3:59 PM
Apparently the founding fathers didn't agree with you.

Interesting that the founding fathers were representing society as a nation in regards to freedoms and restrictions. Just a thought.

Sane
04-20-2011, 4:01 PM
You don't have to register yo vw a religion. You have to register if you want special treatment.


That's kind of my point in this discussion. "if you want special extraordinary treatment"

dantodd
04-20-2011, 4:02 PM
Interesting that the founding fathers were representing society as a nation in regards to freedoms and restrictions. Just a thought.

And they provided a way to change those laws. If you oppose the right to keep and bear arms work to repeal the amendment.

Californio
04-20-2011, 4:03 PM
"Origins of the Bill of Rights" by Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Leonard W. Levy, then get back to us.

Vacaville
04-20-2011, 4:03 PM
:troll: :banghead:

Connor P Price
04-20-2011, 4:03 PM
Do I think there are reasonable restrictions on classes of arms? Yes. Do I think there are reasonable restrictions on what can be done with them? Yes.

The vast majority of restrictions that we have do not fall within the realm of what I consider reasonable, and they are certainly not effective.

So OP, what do you think is reasonable restriction?

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

rivraton
04-20-2011, 4:04 PM
Traveling restrictions include what you can and can't bring into another state whether it be train, plane or auto. Let's also bring up how one must subject themselves to security at airports.

Are you referring to the fruits & vegetables restrictions at state boarder crossings? (the only restricted items that come to mind) if so keep in mind that you are free to buy said restricted items in any state you visit, consequently you do not need to take them with you.

As to airport scrutiny, there are other modes of travel available...

Sane
04-20-2011, 4:05 PM
And they provided a way to change those laws. If you oppose the right to keep and bear arms work to repeal the amendment.


That's not my interest to do so.

jwkincal
04-20-2011, 4:06 PM
That's kind of my point in this discussion. "if you want special extraordinary treatment"

Kind of everybody else's point too... the right to take up the equivalent force available to any oppressor, be it our own government or some external agent(s), is not a "special case" but is one of those natural rights which belong to every person.

InGrAM
04-20-2011, 4:06 PM
It is called the second amendment. And the antis just flat out hate it.

Do you know what a civil right is? Well my right to bear and keep arms is a CIVIL right. I am not going and tell you that your religion is bad and that you can not practice it.
And their is absolutely no laws against you practicing any religion. PERIOD.


A "gun free" society is a corrupt and dangerous society.

Why don't you look at how many people die in the US from car accidents and THEN go back to your ideas on regulating guns. Vehicles are a lot more dangerous than a gun will ever be.

Mesa Tactical
04-20-2011, 4:07 PM
That's kind of my point in this discussion. "if you want special extraordinary treatment"

If that is the point of your opening post, then you don't write as clearly as you might. No one here is demanding "special extraordinary treatment." In fact, quite a lot of the discussion in the "2nd Amend. Related Legal & Political Discussion" forum is about getting governments at all levels to broadly apply an objective standard of treatment to all the people, with no special circumstances at all.

To my earlier point about the efficacy of laws, it would be amusing to get an idea of what you mean when you propose legislation as to "what type of firearms can be bought and sold, and a checks and balance system to make sure only law abiding people can obtain them."

curtisfong
04-20-2011, 4:08 PM
That's kind of my point in this discussion. "if you want special extraordinary treatment"

So I have to register a religion if it is an extraordinary religion?

Sane
04-20-2011, 4:08 PM
Are you referring to the fruits & vegetables restrictions at state boarder crossings? (the only restricted items that come to mind) if so keep in mind that you are free to buy said restricted items in any state you visit, consequently you do not need to take them with you.

As to airport scrutiny, there are other modes of travel available...

I don't believe you can buy or sell firearms without restrictions either.

sbrady@Michel&Associates
04-20-2011, 4:08 PM
I think your question is a legitimate one. But, with respect to the example you gave, a couple things.

First, the "right to travel" is NOT an enumerated right. It is a fundamental right the existence of which has been inferred from language in the Constitution by the Supreme Court. But, I will concede it is a right.

Second, would you think it is a legitimate restriction on the right to travel for the government to say "you cannot travel to Nevada unless you have 'good cause' to do so"? Or a restriction on the First Amendment that "you cannot speak unless you have 'good cause' to do so"? That is what they do with carrying a firearm.

Do you think it is a legitimate restriction to say "you cannot have any cool looking features on your car, even though they do not change the cars performance one iota"? That is what they do with "assault weapon" laws. On that same topic, do you think it is a legitimate law to retroactively deem a whole class of legally sold cars illegal and expect everyone who owns those cars to learn of the law from a DMV bulletin it puts out? That is also what they did with "assault weapon" registration, making hundreds if not thousands of lawful gun owners into instant felons without due process of law.

Do you think it is a legitimate law to say "a car that is identical to another car that has passed all government inspections except for a few cosmetic features, like color or with a sun-roof, is illegal for sale unless it pays for the same inspections?" That is what California does with its handgun roster laws.

So, when you hear gun control advocates say "common sense, reaonable" restrictions, when you apply them in the context of other rights, they are not so reasonable. Couple this legal argument with the fact, yes fact, that gun control is worthless for preventing violence and improving public safety, why would you want such restrictions?

curtisfong
04-20-2011, 4:09 PM
"what type of firearms can be bought and sold, and a checks and balance system to make sure only law abiding people can obtain them."

I'd love him to argue that the government has a compelling interest to regulate what religion I can believe in, based purely on cosmetics. Since "reasonable" weapons restrictions are invariably about cosmetics.

jaymz
04-20-2011, 4:11 PM
As a society, don't you think we all have right to administer rules and regulations regarding firearm ownership? How it is to be used, what type of firearms can be bought and sold, and a checks and balance system to make sure only law abiding people can obtain them?

My case is this, travel is also an enumerated right and yet there are still travel restrictions placed on the interstate traveler.

Absolutely! If you, as a member of society, do not want/like guns - fine, don't buy one. Leave me and my right to bear alone.

Your case is weak, there aren't restrictions on travel that I know of, there are restrictions on what can/can't be imported into certain states and restrictions on items that can be carried on an airplane, but those things are not preventing a person to freely move about the country.

Stonewalker
04-20-2011, 4:12 PM
I want everybody else to shutup and I just want to listen to Sean Brady - thanks for the clear explanation! (just exaggerating for effect there)

ADH
04-20-2011, 4:13 PM
A family member of mine frequents this site. I am not opposed to firearms!

http://files.sharenator.com/maximum_trolling_RE_I_CHALLENGE_YOU-s720x480-142118-535.jpg

Stonewalker
04-20-2011, 4:16 PM
Why would anybody consider the OP's questions trolling? It's called discussion and there isn't enough good discussion here. Opposing views you say!? Somebody looking for info and ideas that are foreign to them!?!?

Geez, "If you don't have anything nice to say then don't say anything at all" seems very appropriate here.

GrizzlyGuy
04-20-2011, 4:16 PM
The right to arm yourself has nothing to do with society and it existed long before the Constitution, founding fathers or the Declaration of Independence. It is a natural right and is inalienable. All humans acquired this right (and many others) the moment they were born.

I think you'll find this video to be enlightening:

Ei0ch-y7r5c

oldsmoboat
04-20-2011, 4:17 PM
Our speech is limited in some ways and legally. Don't you find it interesting that in order to be a certified religion you must register as a religion for tax purposes?
What I find interesting is your choice of user name. Am I too assume that anyone that doesn't agree with you is insane?

Sane
04-20-2011, 4:21 PM
I'd love him to argue that the government has a compelling interest to regulate what religion I can believe in, based purely on cosmetics. Since "reasonable" weapons restrictions are invariably about cosmetics.

No need to be so assuming.

One, as to my gender!

Two, I am not arguing.

Three, it's not MY intent to define reasonable.

I'm not here to argue, just taking in rational dialogue.

sbrady@Michel&Associates
04-20-2011, 4:21 PM
I want everybody else to shutup and I just want to listen to Sean Brady - thanks for the clear explanation! (just exaggerating for effect there)

Finally, a Brady gets a little respect around here!:D Thank you for the kind words. Though, I think there have been a lot of good points made. And, I agree with your other post that the question of what regulations we as gun rights advocates are willing to accept is something that needs to be discussed and explored, as do the reasons we are or are not willing to accept those regulations.

rivraton
04-20-2011, 4:22 PM
I think your question is a legitimate one. But, with respect to the example you gave, a couple things.

First, the "right to travel" is NOT an enumerated right. It is a fundamental right the existence of which has been inferred from language in the Constitution by the Supreme Court. But, I will concede it is a right.

Second, would you think it is a legitimate restriction on the right to travel for the government to say "you cannot travel to Nevada unless you have 'good cause' to do so"? Or a restriction on the First Amendment that "you cannot speak unless you have 'good cause' to do so"? That is what they do with carrying a firearm.

Do you think it is a legitimate restriction to say "you cannot have any cool looking features on your car, even though they do not change the cars performance one iota"? That is what they do with "assault weapon" laws. On that same topic, do you think it is a legitimate law to retroactively deem a whole class of legally sold cars illegal and expect everyone who owns those cars to learn of the law from a DMV bulletin it puts out? That is also what they did with "assault weapon" registration, making hundreds if not thousands of lawful gun owners into instant felons without due process of law.

Do you think it is a legitimate law to say "a car that is identical to another car that has passed all government inspections except for a few cosmetic features, like color or with a sun-roof, is illegal for sale unless it pays for the same inspections?" That is what California does with its handgun roster laws.

So, when you hear gun control advocates say "common sense, reaonable" restrictions, when you apply them in the context of other rights, they are not so reasonable. Couple this legal argument with the fact, yes fact, that gun control is worthless for preventing violence and improving public safety, why would you want such restrictions?

That covers it pretty well...:iagree:

Connor P Price
04-20-2011, 4:22 PM
OP, please do not be dissuaded by those who appear a bit aggressive, there are others who would love to have a civil conversation. Give great consideration to what S Brady had to contribute as it was incredibly accurate.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

NotEnufGarage
04-20-2011, 4:22 PM
Interesting that the founding fathers were representing society as a nation in regards to freedoms and restrictions. Just a thought.

The thing to remember about that is that the founding fathers reserved all freedoms for the People and spelled out the restrictions to be placed on the government. Anything the government was restricted from was to be left up to the states or the People.

ADH
04-20-2011, 4:22 PM
Why would anybody consider the OP's questions trolling? It's called discussion and there isn't enough good discussion here. Opposing views you say!? Somebody looking for info and ideas that are foreign to them!?!?

Geez, "If you don't have anything nice to say then don't say anything at all" seems very appropriate here.

I'm not at all opposed to discussion. I just don't believe the stated premise of "I'm not opposed to firearms". It seems pretty clear to me that the OP is, in many ways, opposed to firearms ownership. That's fine. It's just that my Brady Campaign senses are tingling.

OP, if you are not trolling, please understand that many of the restrictions placed on firearm ownership in CA are nearly indefensible in a society that believes in Rule of Law. The people of the United States HAVE put into place permissible mechanisms for regulating enumerated and Natural rights. With any right, the state must be burdened with providing a compelling interest when attempting to restrict it as well as the least burdensome and most narrowly tailored means of doing so. These laws must also be compatible, legal, with the rest of the nation's legal framework.

Generally speaking, laws enacted that control magazine capacity, means of carry, cosmetic and ergonomic features etc have NEVER had an appreciable effect towards their stated goal of reducing firearm violence. That being the case, the regulations must be considered impermissible.

I hope that counts as discourse.

sbrady@Michel&Associates
04-20-2011, 4:24 PM
I'm not here to argue, just taking in rational dialogue.

That is how I took your post, and my response was designed to provide you with a brief synopsis of what we are currently dealing with so you could be informed when you decide what is and what is not "reasonable."

Stonewalker
04-20-2011, 4:28 PM
I'm not at all opposed to discussion. I just don't believe the stated premise of "I'm not opposed to firearms". It seems pretty clear to me that the OP is, in fact, opposed to firearms ownership. That's fine. It's just that my Brady senses are tingling.

lol same here, but I really don't consider that trolling. As rights advocates the best thing we can do is engage in rational dialogue (if the person is willing to listen) and also just be friendly! Be informative! This is not a "Us vs Them" fight, except for the very most hardcore Brady's (sorry Sean!), it's a cause that belongs to everybody who is under the authority of the US Constitution, which includes more than just US Citizens.

Ok, done with the /threadjack, sorry OP!

Sane
04-20-2011, 4:30 PM
That is how I took your post, and my response was designed to provide you with a brief synopsis of what we are currently dealing with so you could be informed when you decide what is and what is not "reasonable."


Thank you!

I was cleaning my dads guns when I was eight years old.

I am still very interested in all responses to my questions.

Liberty1
04-20-2011, 4:32 PM
Sane, please watch this:

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

muHg86Mys7I


Ops, looks like I got beat to the punch by GG.

InGrAM
04-20-2011, 4:32 PM
http://files.sharenator.com/maximum_trolling_RE_I_CHALLENGE_YOU-s720x480-142118-535.jpg

BAAAAHAHAAH!!!!!!!! LMAO!!

Sane
04-20-2011, 4:35 PM
BAAAAHAHAAH!!!!!!!! LMAO!!


It's OK, my dad said there would be a few juvenile responses to my questions.

ADH
04-20-2011, 4:38 PM
It's OK, my dad said there would be a few juvenile responses to my questions.

Please read the rest of my response at post 37

InGrAM
04-20-2011, 4:47 PM
It's OK, my dad said there would be a few juvenile responses to my questions.

The facts beat emotion. Anti's use emotion to control their thoughts and to try and control others. Pull at the heart strings of the sheeple and you will have them in control.

Anti's are power hungry and they do not care who they **** over to get that power. Remember that.

jwkincal
04-20-2011, 4:47 PM
Well, I really think that the old saw about democracy with the wolves and the lamb voting on lunch really encapsulates this concept most efficiently; but there are volumes upon volumes written about it.

It isn't clear whether the OP is interested in the Framer's context or in the absolute extraction of individual rights vs. the "collective good?"

The discussion is somewhat different, as are the references, depending on which dialog is at hand.

rero360
04-20-2011, 4:48 PM
I'm not sure if anyone else responded to it but, as far as i know California is the only state, at least of the 48 contiguous states, that has check points on the borders of the state to inspect for fruit and other types of stuff.

I drove here from NY and have driven all over the East Coast and have never encountered anything like the agricultural checkpoint going into CA. Heck for 6 months I drove from NY to PA for work every day with only the weigh stations being even close and we never even had to stop for them.

Therefor I would argue that the only restriction on interstate travel to the individual, that I'm aware of is those emplaced by CA and I would also argue that those are unconstitutional as well.

Mesa Tactical
04-20-2011, 4:53 PM
I'm not at all opposed to discussion. I just don't believe the stated premise of "I'm not opposed to firearms". It seems pretty clear to me that the OP is, in many ways, opposed to firearms ownership.

Hmm, so anyone who seeks to regulate the use of nuclear power is in fact opposed to nuclear power?

This is why it is so hard for people to have a discussion in this country, about anything. Everyone is talking and no one is listening.

sneather
04-20-2011, 4:55 PM
I think your question is a legitimate one. But, with respect to the example you gave, a couple things.

First, the "right to travel" is NOT an enumerated right. It is a fundamental right the existence of which has been inferred from language in the Constitution by the Supreme Court. But, I will concede it is a right.

Second, would you think it is a legitimate restriction on the right to travel for the government to say "you cannot travel to Nevada unless you have 'good cause' to do so"? Or a restriction on the First Amendment that "you cannot speak unless you have 'good cause' to do so"? That is what they do with carrying a firearm.

Do you think it is a legitimate restriction to say "you cannot have any cool looking features on your car, even though they do not change the cars performance one iota"? That is what they do with "assault weapon" laws. On that same topic, do you think it is a legitimate law to retroactively deem a whole class of legally sold cars illegal and expect everyone who owns those cars to learn of the law from a DMV bulletin it puts out? That is also what they did with "assault weapon" registration, making hundreds if not thousands of lawful gun owners into instant felons without due process of law.

Do you think it is a legitimate law to say "a car that is identical to another car that has passed all government inspections except for a few cosmetic features, like color or with a sun-roof, is illegal for sale unless it pays for the same inspections?" That is what California does with its handgun roster laws.

So, when you hear gun control advocates say "common sense, reaonable" restrictions, when you apply them in the context of other rights, they are not so reasonable. Couple this legal argument with the fact, yes fact, that gun control is worthless for preventing violence and improving public safety, why would you want such restrictions?


Simply fantastic argumentation.

I think the original poster needs to carefully read the hypothetical arguments above, and then pause for a moment to reflect. Sometimes, it's just too easy to fall back on calling out our "rights" - but I think that narrows the argument, and fails to impart sound logic to a very sizable debate. By speaking in other terms, as above, it's far more effective a means to discuss this topic. I'm interested in reading the OP's opinion of this line of argumentation. I also think it should be a fair amount longer than a single line, in respect to the well-thought and worded statement above.

InGrAM
04-20-2011, 4:56 PM
Hmm, so anyone who seeks to regulate the use of nuclear power is in fact opposed to nuclear power?

This is why it is so hard for people to have a discussion in this country, about anything. Everyone is talking and no one is listening.

The OP was meant to divide. Don't let it do that. ;P

Sane
04-20-2011, 4:56 PM
The facts beat emotion. Anti's use emotion to control their thoughts and to try and control others. Pull at the heart strings of the sheeple and you will have them in control.

Anti's are power hungry and they do not care who they **** over to get that power. Remember that.


This may be true, however I perceive a bit of emotion in a few of the responders to my questions.

Stonewalker
04-20-2011, 4:57 PM
The OP was meant to divide. Don't let it do that. ;P

Divide what?

Luieburger
04-20-2011, 5:02 PM
As a society, don't you think we all have right to administer rules and regulations regarding firearm ownership?

Yes society does have the right to administer those rules. We did that back on December 15th 1791.

"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."


If you don't think that those rules are appropriate, feel free to change them. We as a society do have the right to make amendments.

Good luck.

ADH
04-20-2011, 5:04 PM
Hmm, so anyone who seeks to regulate the use of nuclear power is in fact opposed to nuclear power?

This is why it is so hard for people to have a discussion in this country, about anything. Everyone is talking and no one is listening.

I'll concede that I may have come off as a little bit hostile. I'm just not convinced that this conversation was instigated by someone who was genuinely curious. I have a hard time with discourse that is started in a disingenuous way. That may have been only my perception.

I'll repost what I have at #37 without the snark if the OP cares to respond;

...please understand that many of the restrictions placed on firearm ownership in CA are nearly indefensible in a society that believes in Rule of Law. The people of the United States HAVE put into place permissible mechanisms for regulating enumerated and Natural rights. With any right, the state must be burdened with providing a compelling interest when attempting to restrict it as well as the least burdensome and most narrowly tailored means of doing so. These laws must also be compatible, legal, with the rest of the nation's legal framework.

Generally speaking, laws enacted that control magazine capacity, means of carry, cosmetic and ergonomic features etc have NEVER had an appreciable effect towards their stated goal of reducing firearm violence. That being the case, the regulations must be considered impermissible.

pdugan6
04-20-2011, 5:04 PM
A family member of mine frequents this site. I am not opposed to firearms!

My question is as follows.

Many of you feel you have the right to have any firearm YOU want. As a society, don't you think we all have right to administer rules and regulations regarding firearm ownership? How it is to be used, what type of firearms can be bought and sold, and a checks and balance system to make sure only law abiding people can obtain them?

My case is this, travel is also an enumerated right and yet there are still travel restrictions placed on the interstate traveler.

TROLL!

Sane
04-20-2011, 5:11 PM
Simply fantastic argumentation.

I think the original poster needs to carefully read the hypothetical arguments above, and then pause for a moment to reflect. Sometimes, it's just too easy to fall back on calling out our "rights" - but I think that narrows the argument, and fails to impart sound logic to a very sizable debate. By speaking in other terms, as above, it's far more effective a means to discuss this topic. I'm interested in reading the OP's opinion of this line of argumentation. I also think it should be a fair amount longer than a single line, in respect to the well-thought and worded statement above.


Ok for arguments sake.

1 our government can and does restrict our travel. Mostly to unfriendly nations

2. There are most definitely restrictions on how automobiles are built for safety. The insurance lobby has spent billions making sure of that. Our state also limits what can and can't be done to a car in regards to appearance. I know tinting all windows is a small but correct example.

3. I never said I want these restrictions.

jwkincal
04-20-2011, 5:16 PM
Ok for arguments sake.
1 our government can and does restrict our travel. Mostly to unfriendly nations

2. There are most definitely restrictions on how automobiles are built for safety. The insurance lobby has spent billions making sure of that. Our state also limits what can and can't be done to a car in regards to appearance. I know tinting all windows is a small but correct example.


...and in what context are these connected to any "rights" which may or may not belong to "society?"

They seem to have socio-political or profit-driven motives and are fairly unrelated to any philosophical ideal.

I hope I'm not coming off as dismissive or off-putting, but you have titled this thread as about the "rights of society to decide." If a society has rights in the same sense as an individual has rights, then that's very different from saying "the state does this, therefore it must be correct/OK/right/moral," ...which is kinda what you are saying above.

Sane
04-20-2011, 5:25 PM
I guess I will take my questions else where.

Thank you those who responded with rational answers to my questions. I will use these answers in my upcoming paper and ensuing open debate against those who question our 2A rights.

I did not want to say why I asked because a debate here would help me debate back in unbiased form.

Sorry for stirring up the pot. Thanks again for some of the better responses.

I attend a local university on the peninsula where not everyone is in sync with the 2A.

InGrAM
04-20-2011, 5:29 PM
This may be true, however I perceive a bit of emotion in a few of the responders to my questions.

Emotion is a good thing when defending ones natural born rights. (would you not be emotional if someone tried to make it against the law to swear?) (or to teach your kids an idea of your choosing?) Destruction of a civil right is a horrible thing. To think with emotion on a subject that hes clearly been proven opposite to what you think, is just stupid and clearly shows lack of intelligence or shows that that person has an underlining dubious idea of control.

sneather
04-20-2011, 5:33 PM
Ok for arguments sake.

1 our government can and does restrict our travel. Mostly to unfriendly nations

2. There are most definitely restrictions on how automobiles are built for safety. The insurance lobby has spent billions making sure of that. Our state also limits what can and can't be done to a car in regards to appearance. I know tinting all windows is a small but correct example.

3. I never said I want these restrictions.

Mr Brady would obviously be the one to address your counter points. However, my take on the above would be as follows:

1. Our government restricting travel to certain countries is not the same as restricting our freedom of movement.

2. I think you misunderstood the point of the argument about modifying your car. He was referring to superfluous items which don't affect the actual performance of the vehicle. The correlation being that of features on weapons which don't impact the inherent ability of said weapon to operate in it's safe and intended manner, e.g. flash suppressors, folding stocks, pistol grips, etc. With a vehicle, that might be likened to 22" rims. I might find those garish, myself, but they aren't going to impede the car's ability to do it's job. Tinted windows, however, would be more likened to a feature on a weapon which temporarily blinds the user.

3. It's not terribly relevant whether you want restrictions or not. These arguments should stand on their own, regardless of opinion. That way we can all help to remove "reasonable" or "common sense" from the conversation. Right?

goober
04-20-2011, 5:34 PM
Sane, sorry you got tagged as a troll by some of the less mature and more suspicious members here. Hope you got some rational and insightful information from Sean and others, and that it will be helpful in writing your paper and crafting your debate.

keneva
04-20-2011, 5:36 PM
You can pass all of the gun control that you want. The bottom line is that the criminals WILL NOT FOLLOW ANY OF THE RULES. . . . = PERIOD?

sbrady@Michel&Associates
04-20-2011, 5:41 PM
Ok for arguments sake.

1 our government can and does restrict our travel. Mostly to unfriendly nations

2. There are most definitely restrictions on how automobiles are built for safety. The insurance lobby has spent billions making sure of that. Our state also limits what can and can't be done to a car in regards to appearance. I know tinting all windows is a small but correct example.

3. I never said I want these restrictions.


1. First, restrictions on the right to travel must meet strict scrutiny. There is a strong case that preventing people from going to a couontry that is our enemy is a compelling reason to restrict travel there. Second, that is not a response to the example I put forth. California starts at the position that you are NOT allowed to carry a firearm unless they deem you to have "good cause" to carry. Could the government tell people they cannot travel to their neighboring state unless they show "good cause" for wanting to go there that some government official can arbitrarily refuse to accept? Maybe, if there was, e.g., a nuclear meltdown or rioting going on. But, not just on a whim.

2. True, there are restrictions on how cars are BUILT and even some features like tinted windows. But those all have aspects of safety to them. What safety concerns are there between someone having a Mini-14 without a pistol grip, which is perfectly leagl and one with a pistol grip, which is a felony? What harm is created by the pistol grip? The bottom line is that semi-automatic rifles are common firearms for use in this country and have been since their advent and are thus protected by the Second Amendment. To say some cosmetic features change that status is not the same as banning tinted windows so officers know who is in the car when they approach it. Since there are no safety concerns with the COSMETIC features of a rifle, I guess a more apt analogy instead of the car would be the government saying YOU cannot wear cowboy boots if you want to go to another state because that makes you look scary to others because we have all seen in the movies how dangerous cowboys can be when they are slighted. And, you never addressed the retroactively making legally purchased guns into felonies for their owners. Where else has the government retroactively made owners of a lawful product that is protected by an enumerated right into felons?

3. My question was a rhetorical one.

Just wanted to point out, now that I see it, that Sneather pretty much nailed what I was saying and what I was going to say, as you can see by my almost identical response.

kcbrown
04-20-2011, 5:51 PM
A family member of mine frequents this site. I am not opposed to firearms!

My question is as follows.

Many of you feel you have the right to have any firearm YOU want. As a society, don't you think we all have right to administer rules and regulations regarding firearm ownership? How it is to be used, what type of firearms can be bought and sold, and a checks and balance system to make sure only law abiding people can obtain them?


In a way, this raises the very real issue of which supersedes which.

Traditionally (and I'm not speaking of tradition here in the U.S., but elsewhere), the "rights" of the state ("society", as you call it) supersede those of individuals. This places individuals in a subservient role to the state. History is replete with such societies.

The founders of this country turned that on its head. They essentially decreed that the rights of the individual generally outweigh the "rights" of the state, and instead granted specific powers to the state. Note that the founders were not entirely in agreement on what approach to take, as some (the federalists) wanted a strong central government while others (the anti-federalists) did not. The resulting compromise gave us the Constitution and, very soon thereafter, the Bill of Rights. The federalists didn't want to put the Bill of Rights into the Constitution at all, but the anti-federalists had enough influence that they managed to get the federalists to agree to having it put in.

The passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts by the federalists soon thereafter proved that the anti-federalists were right.


In any case, your question basically asks whether or not "society" has the right to dictate to individuals ("the people") what they can and cannot do, and how they are to do what they can do. The answer to that is, here in the U.S., that there are supposed to be very strict limits on society's ability to do that.

Essentially, the idea is that people have fundamental rights that cannot be abridged except when the real, provable danger to society is high or extreme and there is no less restrictive alternative available. The courts have sometimes made the analysis more complicated than that (perhaps out of necessity, or perhaps out of lack of respect for the right being considered), but the idea is more or less the same.


So the general answer to your question is no, the state does not have the "right" to dictate to the people how, when, where, etc., people can do things unless it can show great need and can show that there's no better way to do it.

But needless to say, the state has ignored that fact and proceeded to violate our rights wholesale anyway. That doesn't mean they have the right to do so, unless you believe "might makes right" (which, alas, has a great deal of real-world relevance).



My case is this, travel is also an enumerated right and yet there are still travel restrictions placed on the interstate traveler.There are, but note that most of the restrictions you speak of do not generally violate the core right of travel. Additionally, some of the restrictions that are now in place could easily be ruled Unconstitutional (meaning, society does not have the "right" to impose those particular restrictions).

Sane
04-20-2011, 5:52 PM
Thanks for your insight Mr. Brady.

I will continue to monitor helpful responses here. Again, my intent was not to start a flame fest as my Dad warned me about. I do have some good rebuttal info here though. Thanks. Sane

Librarian
04-20-2011, 5:54 PM
I guess I will take my questions else where.

Thank you those who responded with rational answers to my questions. I will use these answers in my upcoming paper and ensuing open debate against those who question our 2A rights.

I did not want to say why I asked because a debate here would help me debate back in unbiased form.

Sorry for stirring up the pot. Thanks again for some of the better responses.

I attend a local university on the peninsula where not everyone is in sync with the 2A.

It is customary to provide this kind of information - "... in my upcoming paper ..." - in your first post of the thread. As you have seen, reactions can be a bit heated when not properly in context.