Yay, GUNS!

[John Cuthber]

Are some rights not absolute?

Is there a difference between the right not to be murdered and the right to carry a gun?

 

Rights can also be gained BTW,

[doG]

"No effort by either to circumvent the constitutionally protected rights "of" the people should be tolerated "by" the people."

Either prohibition did that or its revocation did or these "rights" of which you speak are time dependent.

 

Gun ownership may have been a "right" when it was introduced, but not one now.

Constitutionally protected gun ownership is a constitutionally protected right until the Constitution itself is changed. How can one not understand that. The meaning of any law should never change unless the law itself is changed.

[Iggy]

Is there a difference between the right not to be murdered and the right to carry a gun?

 

I explained the difference to you earlier in the thread:

 

 

You think "liberty" is something the government gives you by restraining the governed. You are free not to be shot by your neighbor. You are free not to be insulted by your neighbor. The government makes you free by withholding things from you and telling you how to behave.

 

Natural rights can't be given. They can only be taken away. Let me repeat that: natural rights are never gifted someone, they are only ever deprived them.

 

If someone illegally steals your firearm, they aren't depriving you of your right to have it. Only the government can deprive you of that right by making it illegal to own. A person can take your property, but not your right to own that property.

 

If someone illegally murders you, they aren't depriving you of your right to life. Only the government can deprive you of that right by legalizing your murder. A person can take your life, but not your right to live.

 

If someone spies on you illegal... blah, blah, right to privacy.

 

The framers of the constitution understood this which is why the bill of rights serve no purpose but limiting the power of government.

Edited May 19, 2013 by Iggy

[John Cuthber]

The point seems to be one of nomenclature.

The right not to be murdered or not to be kept as a slave is a right. These rights are unchanging (though they may be denied- such denial is tyranny)

 

Permission to drive a car is a privilege, which the people (often acting via a state of some sort) may or may not grant- often with some limits.

 

Gun ownership is, in my view, a privilege, but you see it as a right.

I think that you see it as a right because it's in the constitution but that was just the opinion of some people at that time and in those circumstances.

I see it as a privilege which should be much more closely controlled.

 

The rights are absolute. The government (ideally, acting as the will of the people) decides on the privileges.

So, while the government might legalise murder, they don't deprive you of the right to live, they just ignore that right. Such a government is tyranny and should be overthrown.

[Iggy]

The right not to be murdered or not to be kept as a slave is a right..

The rights are absolute.

 

The thirteenth amendment outlaws slavery and indentured servitude except as punishment for a crime. A person can lose their freedom just like they can lose their license to drive a car.

 

The part I think you have right is the presumption. You have to take a test and demonstrate some aptitude before being granted a license for a car, but not a gun. I agree with you there. That seems a little insane.

[John Cuthber]

Interestingly, the same constitution which permits slavery and indentured servitude as punishment for a crime, also forbids cruel and unusual punishments.

 

So, Slavery isn't cruel? Seriously?

 

No government has the authority to permit slavery: ever (You might want to consider yourself in the slave's position before you argue with that.)

That's the sort of thing which governments exist to prevent.

[Iggy]

Interestingly, the same constitution which permits slavery and indentured servitude as punishment for a crime, also forbids cruel and unusual punishments.

 

So, Slavery isn't cruel? Seriously?

 

No government has the authority to permit slavery: ever (You might want to consider yourself in the slave's position before you argue with that.)

That's the sort of thing which governments exist to prevent.

 

I think we're just disagreeing over terms. Slavery is the absence of freedom, as is prison.

 

There could be cases where prison is cruel and unusual. For example, if a state legislature passed a law saying that anyone who spit on the sidewalk should serve a year's term in prison then that law would be struck down on the basis of the 8th amendment as being cruel and unusual.

[iNow]

I think we're just disagreeing over terms. Slavery is the absence of freedom, as is prison.

 

I'd say slavery is about a bit more than the "absence of freedom." My dog lacks freedom, but is not a slave. Children lack freedom, but are not slaves. Prisoners also lack freedom, but are not slaves. Slavery brings with it additional and important information about the nature of the persons existence that the suggestion of a lack of freedom cannot alone convey.

 

I recognize the point you're trying to make here, and also that you didn't say "slavery is JUST the absence of freedom," but it was strongly implied and to the detriment of your argument.

 

Perhaps John's larger point was that the constitution also has failings, so making circular arguments themselves rooted in the constitution isn't necessarily the smartest approach on such important topics.

[John Cuthber]

I think we're just disagreeing over terms. Slavery is the absence of freedom, as is prison.

If we were just disagreeing over terms then the two terms would have to be equivalent ins some way. they are not as iNow has pointed out.

(and also, you don't sell prisoners or their children. You can't execute them at a whim and so on.)

 

So, no, we are not just disagreeing over words.

There is a fundamental moral prohibition of slavery that no government can legitimately overturn.

There is no such right to gun ownership, any more than there is a right to drive a car.

[Iggy]

I recognize the point you're trying to make here, and also that you didn't say "slavery is JUST the absence of freedom," but it was strongly implied and to the detriment of your argument.

 

I'm not sure you follow my argument.

 

McGarry v. Pallito

 

McGarry claimed that while he was a pretrial detainee at the Vermont Chittenden Regional Correction Facility, facing charges related to a domestic dispute, prison officials compelled him to work in the prison laundry under threat of physical restraint and legal process. His pro se complaint alleged violation of his Thirteenth Amendment right to be free from involuntary servitude. The district court dismissed, reasoning that McGarry did not allege that his work in the laundry was “like the slavery that gave rise to the enactment of [the Thirteenth] Amendment.” The Second Circuit reversed. The complaint plausibly stated a claim; defendants did not establish entitlement to qualified immunity.

 

Correctional institutions may require inmates to perform personal housekeeping chores such as cleaning the areas in or around their cells without violating the Thirteenth Amendment, but it is “clearly established” that requiring hard labor of pretrial detainees (persons not “duly convicted”) violates the Thirteenth Amendment. A pretrial detainee’s compelled work in a laundry for up to 14 hours a day for three days a week doing other inmates’ laundry cannot reasonably be construed as personally related housekeeping chores and officers of reasonable competence could not disagree.

 

McGarry v. Pallito Opinion Summary

 

Translation: if a person is convicted of a crime they can be denied the 'rights' granted them in the thirteenth amendment. That was exactly my point to John, and it is exactly true.

 

Perhaps John's larger point was that the constitution also has failings, so making circular arguments themselves rooted in the constitution isn't necessarily the smartest approach on such important topics.

 

My statement that owning a firearm should be a privilege much like owning a license to drive infers a rather large agreement with his rather larger point.

 

Nonetheless, John has made the point before that banning firearms of all sorts grants him a right not to be killed. It does no such thing. No law that any government can make is able to give a person a natural right. They can only avoid depriving someone of a natural right by limiting their own power.

[John Cuthber]

"Translation: if a person is convicted of a crime they can be denied the 'rights' granted them in the thirteenth amendment. That was exactly my point to John, and it is exactly true."

There are two problems with that.

Work in prison isn't slavery (as already discussed)

Even if the constitution said that you could keep prisoners as slaves, it would still be wrong. It might be legal, but it isn't the law that gives people the right not to be slaves. A law that said that you could have slaves would be wrong and a government that implemented such a law would be invalid.

 

"John has made the point before that banning firearms of all sorts grants him a right not to be killed."

No I have not.

Please stop doing that.

It doesn't make you look clever.

 

I have the right not to get shot, no matter what the constitution says about guns. That right wasn't granted by the constitution, nor could it validly be revoked by any constitution.

 

(of course, I might forfeit the right to live- most obviously if I'm trying to kill someone else, but that's my decision)

Edited May 19, 2013 by John Cuthber

[Iggy]

"Translation: if a person is convicted of a crime they can be denied the 'rights' granted them in the thirteenth amendment. That was exactly my point to John, and it is exactly true."

There are two problems with that.

Work in prison isn't slavery (as already discussed)

 

I quoted an appellate court disagreeing with you. Only by neglecting the slavery and indentured servitude subjected to a prisoner do you neglect 'prisoner' from the definition of slavery,. I'm not willing to argue terms like that.

 

 

Even if the constitution said that you could keep prisoners as slaves, it would still be wrong.

 

The purpose of the bill of rights and the rest of the amendments is to say what the government may *not* do. It is not a document of laws. It is a document forbidding the enactment of certain types of laws. This is a very important distinction.

 

 

It might be legal, but it isn't the law that gives people the right not to be slaves. A law that said that you could have slaves would be wrong and a government that implemented such a law would be invalid.

 

Laws enacting slavery would certainly be invalid when you have a constitution and a third branch of government whose job it is to invalidate such laws. Otherwise, I suppose the approach France took in the 1790's would work.

 

 

"John has made the point before that banning firearms of all sorts grants him a right not to be killed."

No I have not.

Please stop doing that.

It doesn't make you look clever.

 

I have the right not to get shot, no matter what the constitution says about guns. That right wasn't granted by the constitution, nor could it validly be revoked by any constitution.

 

I'm sure the point you made was that your government gave you the "liberty not to get shot at" by banning guns. Similarly, your government has banned distressful and insulting words, so I suppose you have a 'liberty not to get insulted at'.

 

I don't think that approach works. Liberties are not so granted by governmental ban.

[doG]

Interestingly, the same constitution which permits slavery and indentured servitude as punishment for a crime, also forbids cruel and unusual punishments.

 

 

Irrelevant strawman...

 

I have the right not to get shot, no matter what the constitution says about guns.

 

So! How does that imply you should have any right to infringe on someone else's right to own a gun? The law already makes it illegal for them to murder you with it. You have the right to not have your head bashed in with a hammer too. Do you think that empowers you to argue that hammers should be banned too?

[John Cuthber]

It isn't a strawman to point out that the constitution is barely consistent, since it's being used to justify things.

 

"So! How does that imply you should have any right to infringe on someone else's right to own a gun?"

It doesn't.

I don't have that right any more than anyone else does, though I don't think you will find that I said I did which would make you one constructing men from straw.

Society, as a whole has that right because- unlike the right not to be a slave, the right to own a gun is within the authority of the law. The law can restrict gun ownership because being banned from having a gun is really different from being made a slave or indeed, being killed.

 

It remains the case that work in a prison isn't slavery or, for that matter, indentured servitude.

"I quoted an appellate court disagreeing with you."

OK, when do they start selling the prisoners' children?

They don't?

But you said they were slaves.

 

"The purpose of the bill of rights and the rest of the amendments is to say what the government may *not* do. It is not a document of laws. It is a document forbidding the enactment of certain types of laws."

And, it originally didn't include the bit about slavery.

Well, they changed it.

So they could , in principle, change it back and then the government would be able to declare slavery legal and say that people did not have the right not to be enslaved.

And, if they did that, then the French solution to the government would be a just response.

 

"Liberties are not so granted by governmental ban."

Nor by the constitution.

Slavery was wrong before the 13th amendment, but the constitution did not grant the slaves liberty until someone changed it.

For nearly a hundred years the bill of rights didn't grant the slaves their liberty.

[overtone]

Gun ownership is, in my view, a privilege, but you see it as a right.

 

I think that you see it as a right because it's in the constitution

Yep. It's a right, in the US. It's not a privilege. It cannot be taken away except by due process of law.

 

How you "see" it is irrelevant. We have a fact here, not an opinion.

The part I think you have right is the presumption. You have to take a test and demonstrate some aptitude before being granted a license for a car, but not a gun. I agree with you there. That seems a little insane.

In matters of gun ownership that require a license, you often do need to demonstrate "some aptitude", and there is no Constitutional issue. The notion that a person needs to satisfy some official and demonstrate "aptitude" to exercise a right is incoherent. The notion that "aptitude" has anything much to do with this matter anyway is also problematic - some evidence and argument is required.

There is no such right to gun ownership, any more than there is a right to drive a car.

There is, in the US. Many gun owners even connect the two - considering the right to possess weaponry as a fundamental aspect of the right to not be enslaved. You may have seen the slogan "An unarmed people is subject to slavery at any time"? There's more than a core of truth in it.

It remains the case that work in a prison isn't slavery or, for that matter, indentured servitude.

In the Jim Crow era (ending sometime around the late 1960s) the judicial systems of several former Confederate States racially enforced a series of bogus laws for the purpose of supplying labor - which the State was paid for - to various industries (such as US Steel. The book documenting the arrangements is titled "Slavery By Another Name".

[John Cuthber]

"Yep. It's a right, in the US. It's not a privilege. It cannot be taken away except by due process of law.

How you "see" it is irrelevant. We have a fact here, not an opinion."

 

In a discussion of gun control that "fact" can be changed by opinion.

 

"You may have seen the slogan "An unarmed people is subject to slavery at any time"? There's more than a core of truth in it."

FFS! I'm sure we have lain that idea to rest.

First, I'm not a slave and I live in an unarmed society.

Second, your little guns won't help much against your army and , perhaps most importantly.

Third- don't vote in a dictatorship.

 

"In the Jim Crow era (ending sometime around the late 1960s) the judicial systems of several former Confederate States racially enforced a series of bogus laws for the purpose of supplying labor"

I didn't say that tyranny didn't exist.

And that particular system has been overthrown.

And

"OK, when do they start selling the prisoners' children?

They don't?
But you said they were slaves."

[overtone]

 

First, I'm not a slave and I live in an unarmed society.

So? You've been lucky for a while, recently. Check your history.

 

Second, your little guns won't help much against your army

So? Why are you so focused on the army?

 

 

Third- don't vote in a dictatorship

The black people in Jim Crow America didn't vote in a dictatorship. They were enslaved by their local governments, which prevented them from taking revenge at the polls in part through "aptitude" tests for exercising that right.

 

btw:

 

"OK, when do they start selling the prisoners' children?

They don't?

 

But you said they were slaves."

They were enslaved. The slavers did not enslave their children, both for legal reasons and to avoid the expense. Lots of slave systems develop ways of externalizing the costs of raising children.

[John Cuthber]

 

So? You've been lucky for a while, recently. Check your history.

 

So? Why are you so focused on the army?

 

The black people in Jim Crow America didn't vote in a dictatorship. They were enslaved by their local governments, which prevented them from taking revenge at the polls in part through "aptitude" tests for exercising that right.

 

btw:

They were enslaved. The slavers did not enslave their children, both for legal reasons and to avoid the expense. Lots of slave systems develop ways of externalizing the costs of raising children.

OK, I checked.

Wiki tells me that "Slavery in the British Isles dated from before Roman occupation. Chattel slavery virtually disappeared after the Norman Conquest. It was finally abolished by the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 (which made some exceptions for other parts of the British Empire). The prohibition on slavery and servitude is now codified under Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998."

 

Legally abolished in 1833, but practically non existent for 800 years or so before that.

 

I'm focussed on the army because they are one part of the government charged with responsibility for enforcing the law by the use of arms. Obviously they are the last resort, but if you plan to introduce a dictatorship then you need to be prepared employ the last resort. If, on the other hand you think your guns are going to save you from tyranny, then that last resort is what you need to be able to beat.

Good luck.

 

"In most institutions of slavery throughout the world, the children of slaves became the property of the owner. This was the case with, for example, thralls and American slaves. In other cases, children were enslaved as if they were adults."

from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_slavery

A person who is "property" is a slave.

 

Come to think of it, when did it become legal to kill a prisoner for disobedience or being too old to work?

It isn't?

I thought you said they were slaves.

 

"The black people in Jim Crow America didn't vote in a dictatorship."

No, the white people did. Shameful isn't it?

Edited May 20, 2013 by John Cuthber

[overtone]

Chattel slavery virtually disappeared after the Norman Conquest. - - -

Legally abolished in 1833, but practically non existent for 800 years or so before that.

Chattel slavery is only one kind. If you investigate the legal stuctures and physical circumstances of feudal England, you will discover other kinds.

A person who is "property" is a slave.

That's one way to do it, yes. If you have a legal establishment of "property".

 

Come to think of it, when did it become legal to kill a prisoner for disobedience or being too old to work?

The laws governing the treatment of slaves (or prisoners, for that matter) vary. Some systems formally allow the slavemaster to kill them for minor disobedience or being too old to work, say, and some (most, actually) don't.

 

Almost all of them prohibit slaves from keeping and bearing arms, however. That's a key step in enslaving people. The few setups that overlooked the implications there - such as the autocratic governments of Asia Minor who formed armies of slaves to avoid the risk of battle for themselves - paid heavy penalties.

 

The Scottish highland laird, for example, could kill certain classes of his subjects for disobedience - and was careful to see that they were disarmed, as such treatment of armed people is risky.

 

No, the white people did. Shameful isn't it?

No, they didn't. The governments of the Jim Crow south were not dictatorships.

 

And the white people maintained control over the black people in key part by disarming them.

 

 

I'm focussed on the army because they are one part of the government

charged with responsibility for enforcing the law by the use of arms.

In the US, the army is prohibited from enforcing the law by use of arms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act. Edited May 20, 2013 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

No, they didn't. The governments of the Jim Crow south were not dictatorships.

It's getting late but. OK, Tyranny, rather than dictatorship.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

 

This sort of thing

Chattel slavery is only one kind. If you investigate the legal stuctures and physical circumstances of feudal England, you will discover other kinds.

risks turning into a "no true Scotsman" argument.

If you define serfdom as slavery then serfs are slaves; if you don't then they aren't.

 

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/dialogue/the-slave-route/modern-forms-of-slavery/

Still doesn't include prisoners.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

tells me that the government (as opposed to individuals within it) is not bound that law (which makes it a bit pointless)

"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

 

"The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law."

[Moontanman]

Just for the record, John, Overtone, the type of slavery being discussed here, if I am reading this correctly,consisted of making laws that were almost impossible not to break and making months or years at hard labor the punishment. While it mostly happened to black people there were more than an insignificant number of poor whites who were also "enslaved" in this manner (has no one ever watched Cool Hand Luke?) In this day and time I would be loath to linger in certain parts of the south if I had no good reason to be there.

 

There are still towns that have segregated proms and work camps still exist, yes it's shameful but denying it will not make it go away...

[overtone]

It's getting late but. OK, Tyranny, rather than dictatorship.

They weren't tyrannies either. They were democratically elected representative governments, of and for the white people who were the majority of the citizens.

 

This sort of thing

Chattel slavery is only one kind. If you investigate the legal

stuctures and physical circumstances of feudal England, you will

discover other kinds.

risks turning into a "no true Scotsman" argument.

The opposite - it's a response to the "no true Scotsman" form of your argument - that if children are not sold, it's not slavery; that if the master cannot legally kill at whim its not slavery; and so forth.

 

 

If you define serfdom as slavery then serfs are slaves; if you don't then they aren't.

Recognizing that slavery can exist under different names is not a matter of arbitrary definition. Some serfs, vassals, etc, under some feudal governments more closely matched your characterization of "slavery" than most setups traditionally termed "slave" - such as the Biblical slaves, the Jews in bondage to the Pharoah and the like - and excluding them because they were labeled differently in their native language seems arbitrary.

 

Especially so in a thread in which the avoidance of oppression under any name is the material factor. "An unarmed people is subject to serfdom, vassalage, servitude, etc, at any time. " works every bit as well.

 

http://www.unesco.or...rms-of-slavery/

Still doesn't include prisoners.

So? Are you claiming that one cannot enslave people by first imprisoning them? The Jim Crow setup in the US used local judicial systems to acquire a supply of forced labor which was rented out to industry and agriculture - are you claiming that because they were rented rather than sold, they weren't slaves?

 

Whatever you are wanting to call them, the people chosen to receive this treatment were carefully disarmed in advance. And the army was not involved.

 

 

While it mostly happened to black people there were more than an

insignificant number of poor whites who were also "enslaved" in this

manner (has no one ever watched Cool Hand Luke?)

That was a different situation - that was labor as part of a sentence or punishment, completed on government projects or sometimes simply makework for misery. That was a common sentece for all lower classes of criminal, regardless of race. The convict lived in a government jailhouse, guarded by government employees, protected to some extent by the public and official nature of their treatment.

 

What I refer to was the practice of capturing and renting laborers out to industry, for use by that industry not according to sentence but at will, for industry profit and government remuneration, often to order. This stuff: http://www.slaverybyanothername.com/the-book/excerpt/

Edited May 20, 2013 by overtone

[Moontanman]

Overtone, it may have been punishment but the punishment was cruel and unusual and any infraction would add years to your sentence so that even a short sentence could effectively be a life sentence. The labor was forced and others profited by it, it was seldom make work, i would at least define that as tyranny and slavery.

[john5746]

If the moral outrage of society were the only concern then we could ban guns outright like John advocates. But, banning something from an individual demands an equivalent deference be paid to that individual. There are people in this country who would be dead today if they did not have a firearm. You have to look that person in the eye and tell them "You have to die because I am going to take away your means of defending yourself. It's ok, because people less responsible than you use the tool that saved your life irresponsibly, and I'm mostly concerned with them"

Banning all guns is a hypothetical that is only being tangentially argued in this thread. So, hypothetically, maybe I would need to do as you say. But in reality, you need to look people in the eyes and tell them their children needed to die so you could argue against sane gun regulation. We've been over this so many times. Not even expanded background checks could be passed.

No, it's not silly, it's making a point that you can't outlaw guns without changing the Constitution. The current efforts of both the Executive and Legislative branches to infringe on any of the constitutionally protected rights of the people through regulation are unconstitutional. If there is a desire and a need to reconsider the 2nd amendment then the Executive and Legislative branches need to focus their efforts on changing the constitution as opposed to circumventing it. No effort by either to circumvent the constitutionally protected rights "of" the people should be tolerated "by" the people.

The SCOTUS supported the machine gun ban and other regulations, so I don't see why we can't have expanded background checks, reduced clip sizes and bans of certain types of guns.

Imposing consequences on someone because of actions of someone else is also ethically problematic. Just because someone buys a piece of rope at the hardware store and hangs themself does not mean it should be any harder for me to buy rope at the hardware store. I've done nothing wrong so I should face no encumbrances on buying rope because someone else did something bad with rope.

 

I have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms and a set of laws that limits what I can legally do with them. That someone else abuses their right or violates the law with them is not a reason that I should face any consequences because of their actions. Forcing consequences on me because of the illegal or unethical actions of someone else is itself unethical.

Maybe nerve gas would be a better analogy?

 

Sorry that you need to follow traffic signs, etc. I'm sure you could drive around with great judgement and reflexes without signs, but it would be much shittier. Same with all the mouth breathers and their assualt weapons. If we regulated guns like cars, that would be much better than current. And cars have far more utility for most people.

 

Constitutionally protected gun ownership is a constitutionally protected right until the Constitution itself is changed. How can one not understand that. The meaning of any law should never change unless the law itself is changed.

How can one not understand that regulations - "well regulated" have already been imposed? If the recent laws proposed had been passed, there would still be plenty of weapons to purchase. People could still arm themselves. We have so many laws in regards to public safety - food, water, etc. You can't just go and start cooking food just anywhere and sell it to the public, yet I think food is a basic right. Similarly, people can't just make any freaking gun they want. There should be limits on gun manufacturing for public use. I don't see anything in the constitution protecting manufacturing of ANY gun imaginable.

[Iggy]

Banning all guns is a hypothetical that is only being tangentially argued in this thread. So, hypothetically, maybe I would need to do as you say. But in reality, you need to look people in the eyes and tell them their children needed to die so you could argue against sane gun regulation. We've been over this so many times. Not even expanded background checks could be passed.

The SCOTUS supported the machine gun ban and other regulations, so I don't see why we can't have expanded background checks, reduced clip sizes and bans of certain types of guns.Maybe nerve gas would be a better analogy?

 

The "John" I was referring to was not you. I was speaking of someone to whom that hypothetical is not hypothetical. From what little I've read of your post, I think you and I would mostly agree on gun rights.

 

"The purpose of the bill of rights and the rest of the amendments is to say what the government may *not* do. It is not a document of laws. It is a document forbidding the enactment of certain types of laws."

And, it originally didn't include the bit about slavery.

Well, they changed it.

So they could , in principle, change it back and then the government would be able to declare slavery legal and say that people did not have the right not to be enslaved.

And, if they did that, then the French solution to the government would be a just response.

 

As long as you're advocating the necessity of the french style revolution, we'd best go buy some guns and a few guillotines to boot, eh?

 

I'm up for it. There are a few Syrians right now who I think have a natural right to self defense, and I'd be willing to give them some light arms and some hand grenades. How about it? Are you up for it? Are you up for granting Syrians the right to bear arms? You just said that you have no problem with the French doing it in the 18th century.

 

Maybe it's just your little group of people on your little side of the narrow sea that shouldn't have that right. I don't know. You aren't explaining your position in a way that makes me understand it.