2nd Amendment Working as Intended

Author: Double_R

Posts

Total: 57
Topic's author
#31
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
@ADreamOfLiberty
@Public-Choice
@WyIted
@Moozer325
You are all missing the point.

“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”

"The people" in this passage has been interpreted by the supreme court to essentially mean "each individual". Therefore it logically follows that any infringement on any individual's right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional. This has been the basis by which nearly every effort by the left to enact gun safety laws and measures has been defeated.

So let's take this a step further; if each individual is granted this inalienable right and the purpose of that right is to ensure the security of a free state, then it is up to each individual to determine for themselves whether that security is in danger and if so, nullify the threat.

Another way to think about it is to ask, with any given provision who gets to decide the issue at hand? If we're talking about pardon power the constitution says that's solely up to the president. If we're talking about the right to interpret what the constitution means with regards to any individual issue, that is up to the supreme court. The constitution tells us who gets to decide, and when it comes to whether the security of the free state is in danger, well that's up to "the people" by which we mean each individual American.

So while you may disagree with the assassin's judgement, if you accept the SC's interpretation of "the people" (which is the basis of our national position on guns that all the 2A advocates continue to celebrate) you can't claim their use of it is constitutionally out of bounds, and in fact if you are being consistent you would defend their right to make that choice regardless of whether you agree with it.
#32
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,187
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@Double_R
You’re right that lots of the gun laws are e currently have are unconstitutional when you interpret it literally. However I am in favor of repealing the second amendment, seeing how weapons technology has advanced significantly since the time of its writing. Guns took full minutes to load and you could barely hit anything not at point blank range. In those days, you couldn’t assassinate someone with a musket, so if armed rebellion was happening then it must at least be a popular armed rebellion. I think if you gave any founding father an AR15 they would at least start to rethink the 2nd amendment.
#33
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
"The people" in this passage has been interpreted by the supreme court to essentially mean "each individual". Therefore it logically follows that any infringement on any individual's right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional. This has been the basis by which nearly every effort by the left to enact gun safety laws and measures has been defeated.
Yes


So let's take this a step further; if each individual is granted this inalienable right and the purpose of that right is to ensure the security of a free state, then it is up to each individual to determine for themselves whether that security is in danger and if so, nullify the threat.
You would be happy if they decided in groups of 60 or more?


The constitution tells us who gets to decide
and also what they get to decide. A constitution cannot provision for its own misinterpretation except by parable (which should be included in further constitutions), but against an unlimited degree of dishonesty no words matter.

I would make it explicit, but it is already implicit in the nature of consent itself; every contract has an implicit exit clause: If the other guy doesn't care what is written here, you don't have to either.

So while you may disagree with the assassin's judgement, if you accept the SC's interpretation of "the people" (which is the basis of our national position on guns that all the 2A advocates continue to celebrate) you can't claim their use of it is constitutionally out of bounds
Did someone say assassinations are unconstitutional?


in fact if you are being consistent you would defend their right to make that choice regardless of whether you agree with it.
Consistent with what?

2nd amendment says each individual has the right to keep and bear arms. The first part of the sentence gives the most important reason, presumably so no future government would be tempted to try and limit the definition of 'arms' to 'things that you can do defend yourself from a thug but harmless to government forces' (oh wait that's exactly what happened).

So we have an individual right, we have a social scale reason for that individual right, and you are saying there is somehow also implied a right to kill anybody with the weapons you have a right to because there are definitely circumstances where you are justified in killing someone?

It doesn't follow. The clause that is missing and is not implied would be "and use arms based on your personal whim right or wrong". The reasons which justify the use of force are complicated (in the details of application, not the principle). I wouldn't mind a constitution which lays this all out in great detail, but you can't fill in a lack of detail with an absurd implication that is not there.
#34
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Moozer325
In those days, you couldn’t assassinate someone with a musket
*sigh*


I think if you gave any founding father an AR15 they would at least start to rethink the 2nd amendment.
If you then showed them a Spirit B2 bomber they would say "we needed to seriously reinforce the 2nd amendment", possibly by forcing any standing federal military to provide the same weapons it used to state militaries.
#35
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,988
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, but its purpose, as outlined by the Supreme Court in decisions like District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), is primarily about self-defense and the right of citizens to defend themselves in their homes. It does not grant individuals the authority to "nullify threats" as they personally see fit, especially not in the political realm. The idea that individuals can act unilaterally against perceived threats, such as political candidates, contradicts the foundational principle of law and order in a democratic society.

The Supreme Court in Heller emphasized that while individuals have the right to own firearms, this right is not without limits. Restrictions like prohibiting firearms in sensitive places (e.g., schools, government buildings) are considered constitutional. This clearly shows that the Second Amendment does not provide a carte blanche right for individuals to use arms as they wish, especially not for violence against political figures.

The phrase "well-regulated militia" in the Second Amendment highlights a collective defense function, not individual vigilantism. A militia, historically and legally, was understood to be a group organized under the state's authority for collective security to defend against various threats, not individuals taking law into their own hands. Furthermore, the courts have repeatedly affirmed that individuals do not have the right to unilaterally declare threats against the state or act against political opponents.

Double R's argument suggests that each individual has the right to decide for themselves when the security of the state is in danger, but this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the rule of law works in the U.S. The Constitution delegates specific powers to different branches of government to ensure a structured and lawful society. For instance, the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of constitutional interpretation, while laws regarding crimes, including violence against political figures, are defined by Congress and enforced by the justice system.

Acting outside of these legal structures, especially by committing violent acts, is not protected by the Constitution. In fact, it is explicitly criminal. The First Amendment protects speech and political dissent, but the moment violence or assassination is considered, it becomes a federal crime, punishable under laws prohibiting murder and threats against public officials. And thus is no longer a protected right.

The wild idea that an individual has a right to eliminate a political candidate based on their personal belief that the candidate poses a "threat to the security of a free state" is not only unconstitutional but also morally indefensible. Political violence is explicitly rejected in democratic governance. There are legal avenues—such as elections, courts, and peaceful protests—designed to address grievances, and violent action against political figures is never a legitimate or legal recourse.

Federal law (18 U.S. Code § 351) criminalizes attempts to assassinate or harm members of Congress, presidential candidates, and other high-ranking officials. Therefore, the assertion that someone could justify such actions based on their interpretation of the Second Amendment is directly contradicted by clear federal statutes.

U.S. law has long upheld that individuals cannot act as their own judge, jury, and executioner. The legal system is built to prevent anarchy and vigilantism. The Constitution provides for checks and balances through elections, courts, and law enforcement, not through individual violence. Historical precedents like the Civil War or the assassination of political leaders have demonstrated the devastating consequences of political violence, further reinforcing that democratic processes, not violence, are the means to resolve political disagreements.

Again, the 2nd A was explicitly designed to provide militias and individuals the right to defend themselves...key word is defend. Every current SCOTUS ruling has upheld this interpretation, and none have upheld any form of vigilantism.
#36
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,187
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Targeting officers during war time is nowhere near assassinating a president.
#37
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Moozer325
Targeting officers during war time is nowhere near assassinating a president.
It is proof of the relevant details. You were wrong in your assumption that they had no weapons which were accurate enough for assassinations. At 50 yards a skilled shooter with a long rifle could be almost certain to hit. Especially given the lack of secret service and perimeters at the time.

#38
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,187
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
But my point still remains that political assassinations just didn't happen with the weapons used at the time. 
#39
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,988
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Moozer325
People were allowed to own cannons in 1791.

If anything, 2nd A has been a lot more regulated since 1791.
#40
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,187
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah, but according to the literal interpretation of the 2nd they should still be able to own cannons. That's why we need to change it.
#41
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Moozer325
But my point still remains that political assassinations just didn't happen with the weapons used at the time. 
I guess I should have expected it, you consistently apply the same error as gun grabbers today to the past.

"If they were not assassinated, then it must be because it was impossible!"

You need to think deeper. There are plenty of assassinations in history and plenty before firearms. Knives and poison were rarely used for assassinations in the colonies and UK as well. It was cultural.

Your point was that muskets were incapable of being used to assassinate a political leader and muskets were the only weapon the feeble minds of the founders could imagine. That point did not stand.
#42
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,187
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Yeah, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Your whole thing about people being assassinated by other methods is exactly my point. The founders didn’t see reason to regulate guns because guns weren’t used in assassinations often, and they were so much less deadly.
#43
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Moozer325
Your whole thing about people being assassinated by other methods is exactly my point.
No it wasn't. They weren't assassinated by other methods in the colonies. There were almost no assassinations to speak of. It simply was not the way the anglosphere conducted itself after the issue with Cromwell.

The reason people were not assassinated by long rifle was because people were not being assassinated. End of story. How do we know? Because the long rifle would have been an excellent tool of assassination.
#44
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,187
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Alright, well this is going nowhere. It's an interesting point that you make, but I find it extremely hard to believe that not a single person decided to assassinate a politician that they hated because of "cultural differences". I'd need more evidence. I'm not outright denying anything, I'm just saying that it's hard for me to believe with nothing supporting it.
#45
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Moozer325
I find it extremely hard to believe that not a single person decided to assassinate a politician that they hated because of "cultural differences".
Yet you believe they stopped assassinating in general because they didn't have a modern semiautomatic rifle.

Medival Europe <Lots of assasinations, daggers, poison, crossbows, strangling> -> 18th century colonies <almost no assasination, still daggers, poison, crossbows, strangling + muskets, gunpowder bombs, canons, multibarrel pistols (easily concealed), and long rifles> -> Modern times <all the previous plus semiautomatic rifles and pistols. Lincoln killed point blank, a poisoned long knife would have almost perfect kill rates in the same position, teddy was shot with a pistol, Kenedy was shot with a bolt action rifle which built in 1891>

... but you want to maintain that in the 18th century colonies if there weren't assassinations it was because they just wouldn't find out how to do it until the AR15?


I'm just saying that it's hard for me to believe with nothing supporting it.
You play innocent skeptic well, but it was you who made the assertion about the founders being unaware weapons could be used for assassinations. It's your burden of proof, and it sure is a tall one given that they had better weapons than previous times and places in history with many assassinations.
#46
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,466
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
So while you may disagree with the assassin's judgement, if you accept the SC's interpretation of "the people" (which is the basis of our national position on guns that all the 2A advocates continue to celebrate) you can't claim their use of it is constitutionally out of bounds, and in fact if you are being consistent you would defend their right to make that choice regardless of whether you agree with it.

The people quite obviously means the people correct.


So let's take this a step further; if each individual is granted this inalienable right and the purpose of that right is to ensure the security of a free state, then it is up to each individual to determine for themselves whether that security is in danger and if so, nullify the threat
It's mostly supposed to be a threat. Don't be silly. You want a government that is slightly afraid of being lynched if they step out of line. 

If we are talking security of a free state it would mostly refer to outside invaders. There are mechanisms in place for peaceful revolutions in the voting booth as long as elections remain fair.

If you look at Trump's latest would be assassin he quite literally was not motivated by any tyrannical fears. I read through all of his Twitter posts and he did have a book on Amazon I considered ordering,  although it's probably too late for me to do so as Democrats are already trying to memory hole him as can be seen by the fact Facebook has already deleted his profile (something there is notaltruistic reason to do that ai can think of) . He was a weirdo who was against wars of aggression apparently but also had the following positions

1. Anti Biden for his foreign policy
2. Pro kamala harris who has the same policies
3. Anti Trump who is anti war
4. Pro ramaswamy phones Anti war
5. Pro Nikki Haley who is a war hawk like Biden and Harris.

This guy went to Ukraine to fight with the azov battalion and to recruit for the Ukranian military but judging by the posts of those in the Ukranian military was pretty much hated for being an undisciplined idiot. 

This guy whose actions you seem to support didn't attempt to and almost succeed in killing Trump had it not been for prematurely placing the but of his rifle in the holes of the fence was probably motivated by Trump signaling he would end the war in Ukraine. 

Me and you both know Trump would end it by calling in threats to Putin's life and then forcing both sides to make consessions they Don't want to make but this genius likely thinks he would do it by ending aid to the Ukraine. So no he didn't take actions because he thought Trump was Hitler but because he didn't want an end to the bloodshed in the Ukraine most likely. 
Topic's author
#47
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You would be happy if they decided in groups of 60 or more?
I'm not the one cheering the supreme court's interpretation.

2nd amendment says each individual has the right to keep and bear arms. The first part of the sentence gives the most important reason, presumably so no future government would be tempted to try and limit the definition of 'arms' to...
It doesn't say or imply that. It explicitly states that the reason is to ensure the security of a free state. That's a very wide umbrella, and like I've said, since the constitution vests that responsibility to "the people" then it follows that it's up to the people to determine how to accomplish this.

I think this is extremely vague which is problematic, but if you then determine that "the people" is referring to the individual citizenry, then you can't claim the individual citizenry is wrong when they see a political figure as a threat and decide to nullify it.

Is that ridiculous? Of course, every bit as ridiculous as the supreme court deciding that the President is entitled to full immunity for any crimes he commits through his government agencies, but here we are.
Topic's author
#48
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Double R's argument suggests that each individual has the right to decide for themselves when the security of the state is in danger
It's not my argument, that's what follows from defining "the people" as "each individual" given the first half sentence of the amendment.

The phrase "well-regulated militia" in the Second Amendment highlights a collective defense function, not individual vigilantism. A militia, historically and legally, was understood to be a group organized under the state's authority for collective security to defend against various threats, not individuals taking law into their own hands.
Exactly, if that's what they were talking about then "the people" would be referring to these organized malitia's acting under the states authority, not every Tom, Dick, and Harry who decides to take a trip to Walmart.
Topic's author
#49
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
It's mostly supposed to be a threat. Don't be silly. You want a government that is slightly afraid of being lynched if they step out of line. 
If that's the goal it seems assassination attempts would fulfill it

If we are talking security of a free state it would mostly refer to outside invaders.
Then that would be at odds with the entire idea that the second amendment exists to protect the people from the tyranny of their own government. Under your interpretation, the government would be fully within their constitutional rights to ban all firearms full stop.

So no he didn't take actions because he thought Trump was Hitler but because he didn't want an end to the bloodshed in the Ukraine most likely. 
Your position with regards to this particular issue was determined well before you understood good intentions

This guy whose actions you seem to support
Don't be stupid.

Me and you both know Trump would end it by calling in threats to Putin's life and then forcing both sides to make consessions they Don't want to make
You're delusional. Trump idolizes Putin and everything he has signaled suggests he will step aside and let Russia take Ukraine.

I don't know why you think he's some kind of Superman, he's shown himself to be nothing but an imbecile who makes promises he doesn't even understand let alone is able to keep. Remember when Mexico was gonna pay for that wall? Remember when he was going to wipe out the debt? Remember when he was going to unleash his new healthcare plan in two weeks that was going to be so amazing and cover everyone at a fraction of the cost? The only thing he's doing that he understands is manipulating gullible and uniformed people.
#50
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
You would be happy if they decided in groups of 60 or more?
I'm not the one cheering the supreme court's interpretation.
Nor are you one who is cheering the constitution if you don't think there is an interpretation that you find 'reasonable'.


2nd amendment says each individual has the right to keep and bear arms. The first part of the sentence gives the most important reason, presumably so no future government would be tempted to try and limit the definition of 'arms' to...
It doesn't say or imply that. It explicitly states that the reason is to ensure the security of a free state. That's a very wide umbrella
The debate during the drafting does and it is implicit.

Q: Why should civilians have weapons?
A:To ensure the security of a free state. To defend themselves from small groups of criminals. To hunt. To defend themselves against wild animals.

Q: Why give only the first reason?
A: That is the reason which has the strongest implications about the military capacity civilians should have. You don't need a canon to defend yourself from thieves. You don't need a canon to hunt. You may need a canon to ensure the security of a free state.

"free" wasn't added to pad the word count. The implication (especially in context) is that states that are less than free need to be replaced with free states and that any state that is free would not fear its own people being capable of revolt. Free states serve the people, a people that have been pushed to revolt do not feel served. (insert pun invoking "are you being served" which I can't think of).


and like I've said, since the constitution vests that responsibility to "the people" then it follows that it's up to the people to determine how to accomplish this.
The 2nd amendment declares a preexisting right of the people to be armed with government tier weapons. While I agree it is implied that the people would determine how to use weapons to ensure a free state, there is no implication that any determination any individual may make is moral and ought to be free from criticism or retaliation.

Have a gun = no retaliation
Use a gun = depends

As you love to say: This is basic


I think this is extremely vague which is problematic
I agree. Many more carefully chosen words would have been helpful, but if you look at the context you'll find many times what was not said was not said because there was no consensus.

Take deafening silence on slavery for example. Everybody agreed only a tyrannical government tried to disarm the population. That is what made it into the 2nd amendment.


if you then determine that "the people" is referring to the individual citizenry, then you can't claim the individual citizenry is wrong when they see a political figure as a threat and decide to nullify it.
A.) I didn't write the constitution, I don't agree it perfectly accomplishes its aims and I don't agree its aims are perfect.
B.) It is a document with a fair bit of coherency, especially in the extended context which is a mater of historical record. Such documents have correct interpretations and incorrect interpretations as a matter of objective fact.
C.) Arguing that is says X is not arguing that X is morally or practically perfect.
D.) "the people" is a multidimensional phrase as used at that time, it refers to all individuals as well as the collective they make up. In terms of rights guaranteed against government "the people" can only be (correctly) interpreted as an individual right. Governments already claim to be avatars of the collective.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

That is the amendment which was twisted into a knot ball a meter wide for Roe v Wade I believe. If "the people" weren't individuals then I suppose it's up to the collective whether you're having the baby.


E.) So bringing it all together... "then you can't claim the individual citizenry is wrong when they see a political figure as a threat and decide to nullify it."
I could certainly claim they are wrong even if the constitution implied their individual decisions are legally irrelevant and they must not face government force for their actions.

Yet, the constitution does not imply that (still). All it implies is that there are some cases where governments are a threat to liberty of the people (free state) and in those cases the people should be armed so they have a violent option. When you argue about how violence could be used to ensure proper governance you are now under normal rules of evidence and logic and no longer talking about what the document means because it simply does not say.


Of course, every bit as ridiculous as the supreme court deciding that the President is entitled to full immunity for any crimes he commits through his government agencies
I think that decision was silly as well. It was couched in the wrong terms and the court continued the conceptual error.

It's not nearly as bad as "government can't break into your house and start reading your mail -> therefore there is a right to privacy -> therefore anything you can keep secret is a right -> therefore the government can't make laws about what you do in your bedroom or the doctors office"

The logic is absurd, the implications are absurd, and to top it all off it wasn't even applied in a remotely equitable way.

I think we agree on something: The supreme court are just a bunch of people, not gods, not a fountain of truth.

Now which of us likes to appeal to authority? "but they're not real authorities, if they were actual experts I would agree with them!!!"

Topic's author
#51
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I'm not the one cheering the supreme court's interpretation.
Nor are you one who is cheering the constitution if you don't think there is an interpretation that you find 'reasonable'.
I don't know what this means. If I disagree with an interpretation I'm of course not going to cheer it, that's entirely different from whether I would advocate for it to be followed.

Q: Why give only the first reason?
A: That is the reason which has the strongest implications about the military capacity civilians should have. You don't need a canon to defend yourself from thieves. You don't need a canon to hunt. You may need a canon to ensure the security of a free state.
Exactly, so listing other reasons for the second amendment doesn't cancel out the point I'm making.

Arguing that is says X is not arguing that X is morally or practically perfect.
I've already pointed out that this in no way refutes anything I have said. Why do you keep conflating these two things, or more accurately pretending that I'm conflating them?

I already expanded on the difference between defending what someone says vs defending their right to say it, it's the latter that I'm arguing you would have to do under the interpretation of the 2A that it's advocates seem to accept.

"the people" is a multidimensional phrase as used at that time, it refers to all individuals as well as the collective they make up. In terms of rights guaranteed against government "the people" can only be (correctly) interpreted as an individual right.
Exactly. And my point is that you cannot enshrine a right to each individual citing a responsibility that the individual does not have the right to act upon. That's every bit as incoherent as me claiming that Trump's pardons were unconstitutional.

When you argue about how violence could be used to ensure proper governance you are now under normal rules of evidence and logic and no longer talking about what the document means because it simply does not say.
Evidence and logic by whose standards? Are you saying that it is up to the government to decide whether the force applied against the government is legitimate?
#52
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,610
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

The 2nd amendment declares a preexisting right of the people to be armed with government tier weapons.
Yes, that's why I'm trying to find who is selling the missing Russian suitcase nukes.
#53
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@Double_R
So while you may disagree with the assassin's judgement, if you accept the SC's interpretation of "the people" (which is the basis of our national position on guns that all the 2A advocates continue to celebrate) you can't claim their use of it is constitutionally out of bounds, and in fact if you are being consistent you would defend their right to make that choice regardless of whether you agree with it.
By this logic we should just legalize murder, rape, and domestic abuse. After all, guns are used in all those, too.

Or maybe, JUST MAYBE, it isn't mutually exclusive to have a right to life, a right to property, and a right to own a firearm?

The Declaration of Independence secured 3 rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution added 7 more, including property rights. So I CAN say, Constitutionally, that using a gun violates the 4 amendment because you cannot seize my property (my body is my property, as per the SC ruling of my body my choice in multiple cases) without my permission.

Double_R, I highly recommend reading Murray Rothbard on moral agency and F.A. Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty.
#54
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
And my point is that you cannot enshrine a right to each individual citing a responsibility that the individual does not have the right to act upon.
That point is correct.

The 2nd amendment implies people have a right to secure a free state using arms individually. Your error before was conflating this right with the right to do anything you want just because you believe you're securing a free state using your arms.

If you want an analogy look at the office of president. Trump's lawyers while arguing about immunity (and they're stuck in the conceptual sinkhole too) have basically said that POTUS has the right to do whatever he thinks the constitution charges him to do as opposed to "he has the right to do what the constitution actually charges him to do, err on his interpretation when doubt is reasonable".

Just as you are confusing "right and duty to use arms to keep the state free" to "right and duty to use arms to do anything you can convince yourself is keeping the state free".


This is a very important legal distinction that has implications to much more common use of law. For example if there is a right to self-defense, the standard must be "reasonable fear for one's life" (I would say reasonable fear for the right's of man). It can't be "He was afraid, only he gets to decide if he was afraid for good reason, and he used force and only he gets to decide if it was excessive force."

The 2nd amendment says that the assassin has a right to own a gun. It implies that he has a right to use the gun in rebellion against tyranny. It does not imply that just because he sees tyranny there is tyranny nor does it imply that the target of his aggression is legitimate in a moral or practical sense.
Topic's author
#55
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The 2nd amendment implies people have a right to secure a free state using arms individually. Your error before was conflating this right with the right to do anything you want just because you believe you're securing a free state using your arms.
It is a very good point, but the problem I pointed out at the end of my last post still remains. Unlike the immunity example you cited or any other for that matter, this individual right is one that is granted against the state itself. So while you can make a moral argument against it, there is no way to resolve this conflict without constitutionally empowering the state to decide whether force against itself is legitimate.

Trump's lawyers while arguing about immunity (and they're stuck in the conceptual sinkhole too) have basically said that POTUS has the right to do whatever he thinks the constitution charges him to do as opposed to "he has the right to do what the constitution actuallycharges him to do, err on his interpretation when doubt is reasonable".
Great, so when Trump called up Georgia and told them to find 11,780 votes, the argument that he thought the election was stolen and he was carrying out his official duty to rectify it is not a defense, right?
#56
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,988
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Great, so when Trump called up Georgia and told them to find 11,780 votes,
The ultra far-alt-right wants you to think he was trying to find illegal votes, but we all know from science that there is no such thing as an illegal vote.
#57
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R

The 2nd amendment implies people have a right to secure a free state using arms individually. Your error before was conflating this right with the right to do anything you want just because you believe you're securing a free state using your arms.
It is a very good point, but the problem I pointed out at the end of my last post still remains. Unlike the immunity example you cited or any other for that matter, this individual right is one that is granted against the state itself. So while you can make a moral argument against it, there is no way to resolve this conflict without constitutionally empowering the state to decide whether force against itself is legitimate.
The resolution to the conflict is determined in the art of war. War is not guaranteed to be just anymore than governments are guaranteed to be just. The constitution is a document that makes government just (in theory) when it is followed. When it is being ignored violence is justified (if it really was perfect).

The only point in defining the criteria for legitimate forms of attack against the government in the document governing the government would be to create consensus in the rebellion. Worthwhile in my opinion but meaningless for a judge in the corrupt government, who if he agrees there is no peaceful restoration likely had best leave the robes at home and find a gun so he can join the rebellion.

The government does and always will decide whether aggression against itself is legitimate, but the government can be wrong and the constitution was not designed on the assumption that governments are infallible. You have not found a contradiction in the constitution nor in those who interpret the 2nd amendment as an individual right.


Trump's lawyers while arguing about immunity (and they're stuck in the conceptual sinkhole too) have basically said that POTUS has the right to do whatever he thinks the constitution charges him to do as opposed to "he has the right to do what the constitution actuallycharges him to do, err on his interpretation when doubt is reasonable".
Great, so when Trump called up Georgia and told them to find 11,780 votes, the argument that he thought the election was stolen and he was carrying out his official duty to rectify it is not a defense, right?
Right.

Complaining about election legitimacy and demanding audits isn't a unique right of POTUS, it's the right of every citizen, no defense is needed. Now when he sent lawyers to audit the machines, the fact that he thought he it was a duty is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it was a legitimate function of the executive branch and any law that clearly criminalizes the executive branch upholding the constitution is itself unconstitutional and thus null.