Posted on 04/03/2008 6:22:53 AM PDT by K-oneTexas
Actually they can.
L
True.
But I think they will point to that and things like that and try to use them to constrain "the right to keep and bear arms" in a way that many will not like. They will claim that the constraints are not infringement because what they are constraining was not included in "the right to keep and bear arms" as it was understood at the time.
"That inalienable right presupposes the ability to possess the tools necessary to accomplish it." You can't have an "inalienable" right to self-defense without a corresponding inalienable right to possess the necessary tools to do so.
Obviously, you think you can. I think that's absurd.
So I don't understand how you can say that we have to protect the right of a foreign visitor to a weapon for self defense?
Well, we don't. If they choose to come here without the protection of that right, legally, that's their choice. Morally, however, they have the right to possess any tool required to defend themselves, in my opinion.
8 year-olds are like prisoners or the insane: their protection is legally the responsibility of someone else. An adult who keeps firearms in his house can leave them available for his minor children to use, unless you think that should be restricted, also.
In the first post of yours to which I responded, you said:
The right of self-defense with a weapon, however, is regulated by each state as to 1) who may keep a weapon for self defense
So, can each state decide that 86 y.o. grandmothers have to use knife skills or stick-fighting techniques to defend themselves? The fact that not even DC goes that far is not an answer.
Can you please take the time to make a point? I do. For you to respond with simply a link tells me nothing. Am I supposed to guess then respond to that?
And let me clarify. I meant, "It's foolish to think that states can succesfully regulate gun traffic without federal involvement.
Baloney. You can have an "inalienable" right to life without a corresponding inalienable right to possess necessary tools to do so, like food. You're not entitled to food. The law says you have to pay for it.
You're not entitled to a weapon for self defense. The law says who may have a weapon for self defense. And the type of weapon. And when you may use that weapon and when you may not use that weapon. You can't shoot everyone who threatens you.
"So, can each state decide that 86 y.o. grandmothers have to use knife skills or stick-fighting techniques to defend "
CAN they? Well, of course they CAN, if their state constitution allows it. But I'm not aware of any state which has such a ridiculous law. You must, since you brought it up. Which state does that?
If you read all of Federalist 46, he says no such thing.
"This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence."
The population of the United States in 1788 was around 3 million people. Madison envisioned a militia of 500,000 armed citizens. This is less than 20% of the population, hardly everyone.
LOL! WOW! You've gone off the deep end with this one. It was bound to happen.
Have a nice day, you really cheered me up, stuck at home with the flu.
Then the right cannot be inalienable. By definition, inalienable rights "refers to a theoretical set of human rights that by their nature cannot be transferred from one person to another".
Why’d you ping him?!
So is the M4A1 and Ma Deuce.
It stops when we say “enough.”
When that is though, I won’t hold my breath.
Ah. Well, that explains how I was able to run circles around you today. I thought it was just too easy to totally decimate your arguments, leaving you with nothing to support your statements of fantasy.
Yep. Now it all makes sense.
(A little light ribbing.)
I’m adding a few words to this:
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right, it is the Duty of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
I think that carries more weight.
Seriously, reconcile "You have an inalienable right to self-defense, but you will only be allowed to possess ping-pong balls and a tube of wheel bearing grease with which to exercise that right." And again, that fact that "even DC doesn't go that far" is not an answer.
If someone is denied from possessing the most efficacious tool to defend themselves, their right to self defense has been abrogated, and thus, it is not "inalienable."
Collectives, such as a "majority" don't have rights, they have powers. It should be obvious even to you that such powers are not unlimited. Individual rights have to do with the limits of such powers.
If you intend to use the word "rights" differently, it might be useful to hear you expound on what you mean.
If the residents of DC don’t want something, they don’t have to get/keep it.
Apparently some residents of DC _DO_ want certain tools, so your “the residents of DC don’t want them” line is demonstrably false. Some residents want them, others want to prevent those residents from having them - that’s very different from “the residents of DC don’t want them”.
They required permission from Congress to seek out and destroy British ships. They didn’t need permission to set up targets and practice firing on them.
Once again you attempt to use exceptions to justify infringement.
A person has no "right" to do anything in a place in which they have no right to be.
YOU have a right to keep and bear arms. Exercise it inside my house without permission and you will get your right to life infringed.
Eight-year-olds, prisoners, and the insane all have guardians who are responsible for their protection. Their incapacity to perform their own self-defense has no bearing on MY right to defend myself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.