Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumFor those who support "gun rights"
1) Please define "gun rights" in your own words.
2) Please explain how you interpret the 2nd amendment to grant "gun rights."
3) Please give an example of how a regulation has personally infringed your "gun rights."
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)The right to keep and bear arms is a human right, a civil right. Because our physical and mental prowess enables humans to make and use weapons, I regard ownership and use of them as a natural right.
2) Please explain how you interpret the 2nd amendment to grant "gun rights."
It doesn't. The Constitution and Bill of Rights don't grant any rights. The Bill of Rights enumerates certain important rights for special protection.
Special rights can be granted through contracts or entitlements, but the right to keep and bear arms has been around since before any of that.
3) Please give an example of how a regulation has personally infringed your "gun rights."
I own a few firearms that I was required to register with the state of California as "assault weapons," and I own a 50 BMG target rifle that I was also compelled to register.
The law prohibits me from transferring any of those items to another individual in my own state, and I cannot legally bequeath them to an heir. That is tantamount to an infringement on my basic right to own personal property. I consider those restrictions to be morally wrong, and my inability to sell items from my collection to others has effectively reduced their value without compensation.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)1) The right to self-defense is a human right. While a gun may be useful in self-defense, the right to keep and bear arms is not a human right.
2) Again, the basic right is the right to self-defense. The right to keep and bear arms came after "arms" were recognized.
3) I don't see any infringement of the right to keep and bear arms here. All material goods may decrease or increase in value due to outside forces. It's a gamble you make when you choose to own objects.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)...a place for me to express my views.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)An infringment is one that limits the methods by which it is achieved.
I could defend my life, family, house with a 4000psi water jet cannon but the backup generator cost would be prohibitive.
Firearms are cost reasonable, portable and self contain their own power source.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Yeah, good one.
hack89
(39,171 posts)
Hangingon
(3,071 posts)Hells Liberal
(88 posts)Well said!
hack89
(39,171 posts)The 2A is the enumeration of my individual right to keep and bear arms.
I was once denied a CCW license because the local police chief refused to approve my application - he said I "didn't need it.".
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Maybe a little more than some people would like, but I refer to it as the "Second Amendment" as part of the "Bill of Rights".
It's an individual civil right (if not natural) that allows me the ability to preserve myself, family and home.
"Gun Rights" is a discriminatory and abusive term used by the lobby and control people who want to deflect from the fact that the Second Amendment is a civil right and part of the Bill of Rights. I hold all my civil liberties equal, personal and dear.
They're also called "laws" vs regulations. The existing laws are just fine except for the part that the people who passed them don't follow up and enforce them. I do see in some states and cities that governments do not allow ownership of a defensive firearm not even in the home. That's what I would call an infringement.
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)1. Like Slack, I prefer to not use the term "gun rights". I prefer the phrase 'right to keep or bear arms' or RKBA for short. Most of the time the phrase 'gun rights' refers to the RKBA. The phrase never means "gun's rights" as the snarky sometimes like to say.
2. The constitution does not grant rights. It describes rights and offer legal protection for rights.
3. Any bans on functional firearms is an infringement on the 2nd amendment.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)I support the preexisting individual right to keep and bear arms.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,482 posts)1) I believe in a right to keep and bear arms. I can define that if that's what you mean.
2) The 2A doesn't grant anything.
3) See my #1 in this post. Do you mean the RKBA?
rrneck
(17,671 posts)1) Please define "gun rights" in your own words.
Guns don't have rights, people have rights. Those include the right to defend oneself from assault. Reasons for assault are meaningless. One can be assaulted by a random criminal or lunatic or an oppressive government. Chances of success in defense against an assault are meaningless. If the regulating authority cannot or is not required to offer a remedy for assault, defense of same falls to the individual and regulation of how that individual defends his or her self should be held to a very high bar, since the regulatory agency cannot offer an adequate remedy for serious injury or death.
2) Please explain how you interpret the 2nd amendment to grant "gun rights."
Well here's the text (Like that hasn't been posted before):
"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."
See the part in bold type? The second says that a militia is a good thing to have, and that the members of the militia will be drawn from a populace whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You see that way if such a militia has to be mustered for whatever reason, it won't be drawn from a segment of the population that before such need arises has been exclusively allowed to keep and bear arms.
3) Please give an example of how a regulation has personally infringed your "gun rights."
I guess as close as I can get is a waiting period to buy a pistol once. That ain't much. But nobody is worried about what happened in the past, are they? Changes in public policy impact the future, for a very long time. They don't change the past, they change the trajectory of a culture for good or ill. In fact, the only time the future stops being an issue is when you are dead. That's why people don't like giving up the right to defend themselves because they run the risk of losing their future because of an untimely demise.
Propose all the gun regulations you want, but the first question in everyone's mind will be "what are you going to do if I get into trouble?" If you can't answer that question, they will tell you to fuck off and write it on the back of a one way ticket to the political wilderness.
Hells Liberal
(88 posts)First of all, I prefer the Right to Keep and Bear Arms over your term, Gun Rights, since I believe the 2nd Amendment governs everything from a pen knife to an AK-47.
1. RKBA is the right of any law-abiding adult who is not ajudicated mentally incompetent or insane to own and carry a weapon in a public place or in his or her own home.
2. The 2nd Amendment clearly provides for "the right of the people" to keep and bear arms. "People" is an individual term, such as "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects" in the 4th Amendment is considered to refer to individuals.
The reference to "a well-regulated militia" provides for the existence of a local militia, which is satisfied with the National Guard.
The 2nd Amendment provides for two separate and distinct rights.
3. Florida has very lax weapons laws. As a martial arts student, instructor and competitor, I have taken my dai pa, my kwan dao, gim, sam jie kwan and other tools of my sport and practiced in local parks or in plain view on my own property without fear of arrest. In other states where I've lived, particularly Connecticut, New York, New Jersey and California, I'd be committing a felony to take any of those items from my home to practice.
In Connecticut, I was once harassed by a cop for practicing with a sam jie kwan on my own backyard because being a corner lot, I was visible to the public and could be charged with "brandishing weapons" in that state. Also in Connecticut, it is a felony to carry a weapon in your motor vehicle without a permit.
Hypothetically, if I were to compete in a martial arts tournament in that state, if I get pulled over by an overzealous cop on my way to or from the tournament, I could be charged with a felony, as happened to one of my classmates. He spent more than $1,000 to defend himself and was sentenced to six months probation.
In New York, several of my weapons, particularly the sam jie kwan (three-sectioned staff) would be illegal to own even within the confines of my own home or dojo.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)The right to self-defense is a universal, natural right of all sentient beings. Moreover, being armed is the mark of a free person. It is much harder to compel an armed person to do things harmful to his interests than one who is not armed.
I believe that people should be able to bear small arms suitable for self-defense, sport, and military use.
2) Please explain how you interpret the 2nd amendment to grant "gun rights."
The US Constitution does not grant rights, it enumerates them. The rights listed in the Constitution are understood to be pre-existing.
The second amendment is a very simple, easy to understand right. It says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It gives a reason why - militia service to preserve the security of free states. This means that the people are to bear arms that at least are capable of allowing them to serve as military forces in an emergency.
Note that the second amendment does not stipulate that militia service is the only reason to keep and bear arms.
3) Please give an example of how a regulation has personally infringed your "gun rights."
I am fortunate in that I have lived most of my life in the South, which has very liberal firearm laws, so I have been largely immune from any impact by anti-gun laws.
The Assault Weapons Bill elevated the prices of assault rifles, and forced me to buy one that had the bayonet lug and threads on the muzzle ground off, but otherwise it was the same as it was before the ban.
Every time I buy a new firearm I am compelled to get permission from the federal government, which marks me as a firearm owner, which undermines the intent of the second amendment by giving the government a list of firearm owners.
I have hesitated in obtaining a CCW permit because this also puts me on a list of firearm owners and undermines the second amendment.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)Gun rights are rights pertaining to guns--the rights people have to own, store, carry and use guns for moral and appropriate reasons like self-defense, defense of family and others, sport, hunting, investment, sentimental reasons, etc.
The term "gun rights" does not imply that guns have rights any more than the terms "water rights," "land rights," "property rights" or "abortion rights" imply that water, land, property or abortions have rights.
The angst that some people have with the term "gun rights" can be seen for what it is by putting it in this context.
2) Please explain how you interpret the 2nd amendment to grant "gun rights."
The Second Amendment does not "grant rights." The American philosophy is that people exist who have rights and then governments are established to secure those rights. Read the Declaration of Independence; we have rights because we are human beings.
Government may respect rights, government may violate rights, but government may not create and destroy rights.
If I accept your premise, my ancestors in slavery had no right to be free, since the government said they had no such rights. If I accept your premise, the recognition of their rights was the same thing as the creation of their rights. Furthermore, to take your premise to its logical conclusion, they were not even human, because the government did not acknowledge them to be covered by the term.
To say that I resent the idea that government "grants" rights is an understatement. Rights transcend government; rights are above government; government exists for rights, not the other way around.
My ancestors had no less rights the day before the Emancipation Proclamation than they did the day after. Jews had no more rights after the defeated German government was forced to acknowledge the truth than before the Nazi's defeat. The only thing that happened was that government officially recognized a truth it had previously denied.
3) Please give an example of how a regulation has personally infringed your "gun rights."
I have traveled to New York City, Chicago, New Jersey and Hawaii. Had I carried a gun on my prerson and been caught with it by the local police, I would have been charged with an imaginary crime--but with real consequences. By forbidding me to exercise the right to bear arms in those places, their unconstitutional, illegal, immoral regulations clearly infringed my right to bear arms as they are explicitly forbidden to do by the Second Amendment.
ileus
(15,396 posts)2. The 2A doesn't grant gun rights...it grants American the right to own firearms.
3. I can't carry in the post office. So I have to remove my sidearm and go inside to ship a coin I sell on e-bay. This leaves my firearm open to being stolen from my vehicle, and infringes on a basic civil right to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)Do you see them as problematic?
I've never heard anyone complain that water, land, property and abortions don't have rights when hearing those terms. Have you?
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)That puts them in a different category than natural rights like the right to self-defense.
I don't like the term abortion rights.
I can't really articulate why, I just don't like it.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)That same issue exists with water, land and property.
At least you are consistent in that you don't like "abortion rights." I think the reason most people dislike the term "gun rights" has nothing to do with logic or language but is a function of their policy preferences.
(BTW, not all property rights are contractual. If I invent a widget or you write a novel, we have intellectual property that is not contractual. If you carve a figure from driftwood, you have property rights in that figure--no contract required.)
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Terms like mineral rights are well established in legal lexicon, to which I have had more exposure than I would like.
An interest in minerals in land, with or without ownership of the surface of the land. A right to take minerals or a right to receive a royalty.
Mineral right is a term encompassing all the ways a person can have a possessory interest in minerals in the ground. It includes the right to enter the land and occupy it in order to remove the minerals. Mineral rights can be retained when land is sold or conveyed, thus making it possible for someone to own the right to mine the minerals without owning the land. A right of entry onto the land can be held by the grantor who retains the mineral rights, or other arrangements can be made to gain access to the minerals. Mineral rights can be leased or sold. A landowner who leases mineral rights often receives a royalty, or a percentage of the value of the minerals which are mined by the leaseholder.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Mineral+Right
ileus
(15,396 posts)Next time I get in a debate over any of those I'll be sure to repeat (land,water,property & abortions) don't have rights.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)No article in the bill of rights "grants" anything.
Derp.
US v Cruikshank
"This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
Presser v Illinois
"the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms"
Berserker
(3,419 posts)The British attempts to disarm the Americans in the years 1768-1775. The grievances expressed led to the adoption of right to bear arms guarantees in the state Declarations of Rights beginning in 1776 and the federal Second Amendment in 1789.
The British resorted to every possible tactic to disarm the Americans--entrapment, false promises of "safekeeping," banning imports, direct seizure and finally shooting persons bearing arms. We the American people must make a renewed commitment to understand the historical origins of the Bill of Rights, in order to preserve their liberties.
First Published in the American Rifleman , March, 1989
It does not matter how I personally define gun rights, what matters is what is written in the Bill of Rights and as an American citizen I am allowed these rights. We will fight for these rights as our forefathers did and we will never forget the sacrifices they endured to give us these rights.
Regulations are an infringement of these rights. That has already been attempted by the British and established as a losing battle. We as American people have the right to life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness which we have fought and died for throughout history.
"Disperse you damn rebels--Damn you, throw down your arms and Disperse."
MAJ. JOHN PITCAIRN
LEXINGTON,
APRIL 19, 1775
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)I was hoping to get understandings of the RK&BA on a more personal level. There were some good responses and others failed miserably. I find it interesting that many are uncomfortable with the term "gun rights." I'd like to try this again soon without using "gun rights."
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,482 posts)The term "gun rights" is used today frequently by both sides of this debate. I'm not sure of the origin of the term. The "RKBA" is quite a bit older and more generic. The term "arms" as used in the 2A is neither accidental nor out of cliche. The right preserved was considered, debated and passed by the states to preserve the states by preserving the people's rights in the most effective and correct law possible.
I'm looking forward to reading the thread you mention. 
DWC
(911 posts)1) Please define "gun rights" in your own words.
The term "gun rights" is a misnomer and should be restated as "arms rights". By definition and "arm" is a weapon that can be transported and operated by an individual. By definition a "weapon" is any tool that can cause physical or psychological harm to living beings.
I maintain that it is my unalienable right to keep and bear any weapon that I can transport and operate without assistance from others. The list of weapons available to me include slings, bows & arrows, guns, hammers, axes, knives, clubs and many, many more
2) Please explain how you interpret the 2nd amendment to grant "gun rights."
The 2nd amendment "grants" nothing. It is a specific, enumerated restriction on the government.
The 2nd amendment specifically recognizes my unalienable right to "keep and bear arms" and guarantees that unalienable right "shall not be infringed" by the government.
3) Please give an example of how a regulation has personally infringed your "gun rights."
Luby's Cafeteria Killeen, Texas Oct. 16, 1991. 23 murdered 20 wounded. I passed on the Luby's Lu Ann plate that day and opted for a chicken fried steak at the Hallmark Restaurant, about a mile away. Coming out of the restaurant we heard the sirens.
At that time, carrying our guns on our person was illegal so our guns were legally left in our cars. George Hennard, the murderer, did not give a crap about the law and shot 43 of my friends and neighbors who were rendered defenseless by the law.
Never Again!
"I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all." - Martin Luther
Semper Fi,
Francis Marion
(250 posts)1) I have a right to own and use a firearm up to and including a military grade individual weapon. Fifty years ago, that meant an M1 Garand. Today, that means an M4 carbine.
2) I am one of The People. It is the right The People to keep and bear arms. Moreover, that right shall not be infringed. Stepping back, my human rights- gun rights among many others- are not GRANTED by the US Constitution. Rather, they are my- our- birthright and inheritance from God Almighty- rights which, after the fact, the US Constitution also happens to acknowledge.
3) I live in California, am a 'regular guy' (not a police officer, not in CANG)
-I cannot go to my local gun store and buy an M4 carbine as used in US service and therefore suitable for modern Second Amendment (well regulated militia) use.
-Can't legally buy a standard capacity M16 30-round magazine.
-Can't legally buy a semiautomatic M4-ish rifle due to various 'assault weapon' (a Nazi term) bans.
-Can't legally buy the same hardware I am likely to find in use by my local Sheriff's department.
-The People and The Institutions cannot legally make the same firearm choices, and I find this unacceptable and un-American, besides being contrary to Amendment II.
4) Bonus warning to people in free states:
If you don't want to end up like us in CA, you had better carefully vet the people you choose to make law, and exclude anybody who's compromised on the Bill of Rights, regardless of their party affiliation. It is more important to protect our rights than to elect just anybody who happens to belong to our party. I won't support candidates who won't support our Bill of Rights.
It'll be easy to slide into a police state over time, and a site more difficult to get back out of it, assuming an appetite for freedom still exists. Cassandra out.
sarisataka
(18,755 posts)**End of nitpicking**
1) Please define "gun rights" in your own words.
Not being a convicted felon, nor having been adjudicated as a danger to myself or others, I have the right to purchase firearms or other weapons without restrictions of waiting an unreasonable time nor with registration
2) Please explain how you interpret the 2nd amendment to grant "gun rights."
It does not. It recognizes that I have a right to keep and bear arms. The state receives a benefit from my ownership, and presumed competency with such arms, in that I am a member of the unorganized militia and potentially may serve the state with such weapons and skills.
3) Please give an example of how a regulation has personally infringed your "gun rights."
Prior to obtaining a permit to carry, I have had to wait five days to receive a handgun. The background check for such a purpose can be concluded in minutes.
Should I wish to purchase a fully automatic version of a semi automatic rifle, I must subject myself to an extremely detailed and lengthy background check, register the gun and pay arbitrary fess and taxes. **Note I have no desire or budget to purchase a fully automatic weapon; I am satisfied with my ability to place well-aimed shots. It is however, a restriction on my right to choose
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)#3
Here in Ohio I can own pretty much whatever I want but the first rifle I ever bought was a Romanian AK-47 clone during the Clinton Gun Ban. So no, bayonet lug or flash suppressor. Other than that.... never been restricted. Ah just remembered, I bought a CZ-75B during the gun ban also and was stuck with a 10 round magazine for it. Cost a small fortune to get the full capacity 15rd magazines for it at the time. Now they can be had for about $25.
