Gun Rights: God given? Or man given?

[TemplarKormac]

Well said. Basically, striking that balance. I think thats where we are with the gun debate. Where is that balance between gun rights and civil governance?

I personally think much stricter and harsher penalties for violent crime committed with a gun are the best step. Next best is to reinvest in our mental health system. Now, both will require some additional government expansion. Bigger jails. New mental hospitals. Private companies cant (or shouldnt) have the power to incarcerate someone, so govt will have to pay for it.

Confiscation wont work. I personally think the current Class 3 licensing is plenty good enough for automatic weapons, as few criminals will have that license, and they'll break that law anyway.

The only real gun control measure I'd support are background checks, AND, Im 100% in favor of state permits for concealed carry, BUT, with a mandatory 40 hours of training to carry it. Make it 8 hours a day, for 5 weekends in a row. 5 Saturdays in a row. Most police academies are about 20 weeks, with probably about 100-120 hours dedicated to firearms. Military schools are even longer. The least we could ask is that if we are gonna entrust private citizens to carry, and possibly engage a bad guy, to be sure they are accurate and safe.

I'm impressed. Perhaps if we did show each other a bit more respect around here, we'd get ingenious ideas like this one. I could stand behind this.

Yeah, thats what I've tried to do. But, I too get caught up in the name calling a lot. We're all human.

But this idea is one I have always supported. I see nothing wrong at all with mandated training. In fact, I bet it would LOWER gun violence even more, as the criminals would know 1) People are carrying, and 2) People are trained well!!!! The criminals wouldnt bother going through the 5 Saturdays, so, they would be less trained and couldnt legally carry.

Maybe a huge compromise, like the Feds did with highway funding.

If a president (lets not specify, lets say its 2017), offered this compromise: A law that bans ANY new gun control bill for the next 75 years........If all 50 states will sign on and commit to starting their own state run and state funded CCW program, in which citizens would get their background check (all paperwork kept on file by the dealer, not the govt), got their permit (for a one time $100 fee to pay for instructors) and go through 5 single days of training, total 40 hours, on safety, law and tactics. The 5 day requirement would need to be completed within, say, 10 weeks. So you could go every other Saturday.

And just like a driver's license, it would be renewed every 5-10 years. Just a single day refresher, 8 hours, every 5-10 years.

It would be a great compromise.

We may not agree on much else, but this...this is a stroke of pure enlightenment.

 

[there4eyeM]

Two points:

'Rights' are a human concept, the result of how we perceive the universe. They do not exist anywhere in space or time outside the skulls of humans.

If 'rights' were 'God-given', what would happen in the case of those who do not believe in God?

 

[Abatis]

Is the right to own a gun "God given", or not??

The "god given right" thing is a reference to the Declaration of Independence stating that we are endowed with certain inalienable rights by our Creator.

That was not really a definitive theological statement it was only an oppositional political argument in rebuttal to the British system's fundamental "divine right" of the king to rule however he desired.

The system established by the framers does not recognize any divine hand in governance; the only determinant of government's legitimacy is that it governs with the consent of the governed exercising only the powers conferred to it. That is an entirely secular tenet and if adhered to the rights of the people would never be violated.

So if government cant create or take away that right, but simply recognize it, isn't it fair to say that we, the United States, should recognize that ALL of mankind has the right to bear arms, even of the government of those people dont recognize it?

Now you are getting into the core principles that mark a strong distinction between the US and the rest of the world. We are the only government that premises the exercise of government power on the principle of conferred powers and retained rights. The people empower government by surrendering power in a limited, delegated fashion setting out those powers in specific, limited form in a Constitution.

This established the principle (set apart from absolutist rule, i.e., monarchy) that government cannot legitimately be arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people because government's power is only the sum of that limited amount of power each member of the society gives up to the legislative assembly. That power is precisely enumerated and everything NOT conferred is retained by the people (with some interests being too important to surrender to the care / control of another, AKA, un/inalienable rights).

The right to arms exists not because the framers chose to "give" us the right through the 2nd Amendment; we possess the right because we the people chose to not dispossess ourselves of it . . . We the people never granted government any power to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen.

Thus the right to arms is an original, fundamental, never conferred, fully retained right -- held out completely from the powers of government. So, in a philosophical sense, all the 2nd Amendment "does" is redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it was never granted.

Then where is the line in the sand of what weapons are ok and not? And who decides that?

Because of peculiars of the system and Court rulings, we citizens are stuck with citing the 2nd Amendment as the guarantee of gun rights against government action. With that comes the baggage of the intent of the Amendment; the "why" it was demanded that the pre-existing right to arms be further held immune from the powers granted to the federal government.

So, Courts have examined the 'object' (intent) of the Amendment. That object was primarily to ensure the continuation of the general militia concept so that both the states and the federal government would have a ready pool of properly equipped citizens to call up at a moments notice to aid the civil authority in time of need.

This is where we get the primary protection sphere of the Amendment. The 2nd Amendment protects the types of arms that would be useful to a militia member of the present day and that can be effectively used by that person in the types of engagements that militia are expected to face if called.

US v Miller, articulated those protection criteria (or tests) that the Supreme Court uses to determine if an arm is beyond the reach of government. The arm must be shown to be of the type:

• In common use at the time and/or
• that constitute the ordinary military equipment and/or
• that can be employed advantageously in the common defense of the citizens.

If the type of arm meets any one of these criteria the right to posses and use (keep and bear) that weapon must be preserved and the authority claimed by government to restrict its possession must be repelled.

If the arm fails all those criteria the government is permitted to argue that the arm is "dangerous and unusual" and that a power should be afforded to government to restrict its possession and use. In Miller, nobody briefed the Court nor showed up to argue that that type of arm ( a shotgun with a barrel length under 18 inches) met that criteria . . . thus the Court upheld the law that restricted the possession and use of that type of arm.

If it includes ALL weapons, then we have no right to deny Iran a nuke

It doesn't so we don't . . .

If you are gonna argue that 2nd amendment rights are ONLY for US citizens, then you are saying that the right is GOVERNMENT granted, not God given.

The protections of the 2nd Amendment, securing the right of all the people who fall under the operation of the Constitution, are not restricted to US citizens. Immigrants with legal status can purchase, possess and use firearms.

 

[Flopper]

It seems to me the Bible is just a bit ambiguous when it comes stating that people have a right to own guns. At best it's an interpretation and a real stretch. Biblical figures carried swords, so assault rifles and all manner of weapons of mass destruction are OK today? The Bible implies that it's ok to defend yourself but it also says you should turn the other cheek.

Then there's the question who's version of God decreed that guns are ok. Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist....

 

[OriginalShroom]

I would totally oppose any training requirement for an adult over 21 to have to have in order to own a firearm, especially one that required 40 hours of training.

What other enumerated or unenumerated right under the Constitution would anyone support?

We can't even get the left to support a 3 day waiting period to kill an unborn child.