California Father Who Opened Fire on Armed Attacker: ‘It Was

[Lumpy]

You do realize that the constitution can be amended, right? We are allowed to have guns as long as the second amendment isn’t overturned. We should work to prevent that from happening of course, but your “right” is given to you by the people not taking it away.

It’s literally called the second amendment.

By the Natural Rights theory rights are pre-existing; they can be violated but not nullified. What the Bill of Rights does is, to borrow a phrase from the Declaration of Independence, "secure" those rights: make them manifest within a system of law and declare their abrogation unconstitutional and illegitimate.

Do you suppose that before the passage of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments that African-Americans had no rights; or as declared in the infamous Dred Scott ruling "no rights which the white man was bound to respect"? Most people today would say that their human rights had pre-existed all along and that it was wrong and evil that those rights were unrecognized and violated.

Sounds to me as if like so many you're experiencing cognitive dissonance over "The Embarrassing Second Amendment"- the red-headed stepchild of the Bill of Rights.

[Markemp]

...every human was created, and by virtue of their creation, they exist, and thus, are are endowed with certain inalienable rights, not the invokable, and revocable privileges administered by a gov’t agency.

You have the inalienable right to self defense. You don't have the right to self defense with any particular tool, like an RPG. The people have an inalienable right to determine what they consider appropriate for self defense.

You also don't get to determine what constitutes "self defense" on your own. Shooting the mailman coming up the driveway to deliver your mail, or someone turning around in your driveway isn't self defense. Laws and regulations help define where those boundaries are.

Owning a gun isn't an inalienable right. It's just merely a good idea for most people, but not all people.

[Markemp]

Do you suppose that before the passage of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments that African-Americans had no rights; or as declared in the infamous Dred Scott ruling "no rights which the white man was bound to respect"? Most people today would say that their human rights had pre-existed all along and that it was wrong and evil that those rights were unrecognized and violated.

I would love to have a nice long philosophical discussion over the 9th Amendment, but then we'd all have to come to the agreement that the government has no right to apply any limits to a woman's inalienable right to have an abortion. And even I don't think that is true.

[Lumpy]

You don't have the right to self defense with any particular tool, like an RPG.

Why not? What's wrong with RPGs if the situation could somehow call for one? I think what you really mean is that there are few or no situations outside of war where the use of an RPG wouldn't represent enormous overkill and unacceptable collateral damage. But that doesn't make the weapon illegitimate.

The people have an inalienable right to determine what they consider appropriate for self defense.

No, again it's that society has an authority to determine when use of force is proper and necessary for self-defense, rather than banning instruments.

You also don't get to determine what constitutes "self defense" on your own. Shooting the mailman coming up the driveway to deliver your mail, or someone turning around in your driveway isn't self defense. Laws and regulations help define where those boundaries are.

True enough, but that shouldn't nullify the very concept of self-defense, or be used to declare that no self-defense situation could ever justify using a gun, as many pseudo-pacifists attempt to.

Owning a gun isn't an inalienable right.

It is as long as there's no other ultimate guarantee that government would not abuse a monopoly on firearms.

[jdege]

The people have an inalienable right to determine what they consider appropriate for self defense.

"People" don't have rights, only individuals do.

Groups have only the individual rights of the individuals making up the group. That they've come together in a group gives them no additional rights.

This is true regardless of whether the group is a gang, a mob, or a government.

[Markemp]

How can I determine what an inalienable right is? Is it anything I say it is?

Who gets to determine this?

[Grayskies]

How can I determine what an inalienable right is? Is it anything I say it is?

Who gets to determine this?

God.

[crbutler]

From the Declaration of Independence they are god given.

The imperfect way of dealing with it is through laws and the court process.

Since it’s impossible to know the mind of god, the founders suggested that since having one person (the king) didn’t work well, having the collective body consent to the rules was the best we could hope for.

So while our system is imperfect, and the judges, LEO’s, and juries need to keep that in mind, it is what we use.

As for your comment on abortion- while I tend to support legalization at some level, it ain’t a right due to the fact by its very nature it affects another being. If you want to go down the road of certain people’s rights overrule others… then you are getting into a whole new area and the whole privacy argument is BS.

[Chunkychuck]

How can I determine what an inalienable right is? Is it anything I say it is?

It is if you have the biggest club and have no qualm in using it to back up your definition

[Markemp]

How can I determine what an inalienable right is? Is it anything I say it is?

Who gets to determine this?

God.

God told you that owning an AR-15 is an inalienable right? Is this written down somewhere, or did He tell you this personally?

[Markemp]

How can I determine what an inalienable right is? Is it anything I say it is?

It is if you have the biggest club and have no qualm in using it to back up your definition

Got a ballot. That works for me.

[Markemp]

Why not? What's wrong with RPGs if the situation could somehow call for one?

I'm fine with someone owning an RPG if they meet all the regulations for owning own. Obviously these regulations should be very stringent almost to the point of being onerous, in my opinion.

[xd ED]

...every human was created, and by virtue of their creation, they exist, and thus, are are endowed with certain inalienable rights, not the invokable, and revocable privileges administered by a gov’t agency.

You have the inalienable right to self defense. You don't have the right to self defense with any particular tool, like an RPG. The people have an inalienable right to determine what they consider appropriate for self defense.

You contradict yourself.

“You have the inalienable right to self defense. You don't have the right to self defense with any particular tool...”


In the time of a tyrannical gov’t threateningly its citizenry with muskets, muskets were reasonable.
If a tyrannical regime is willing and able to threaten their citizens with RPGs, why is that not equally reasonable?

By your reasoning Russia has the legal and moral authority to determine the weaponry the Ukrainians are allowed to use.

“The people” - as you refer to the potentially tyrannical majority - are kept in check by the rights acknowledged in the Constitution; lest ‘The people’ act on their self endowed appropriateness of shooting black trespassers on white owned plantations.

[Grayskies]

How can I determine what an inalienable right is? Is it anything I say it is?

Who gets to determine this?

God.

God told you that owning an AR-15 is an inalienable right? Is this written down somewhere, or did He tell you this personally?

Read what you asked.