The source of our rights (split from gun injury)

[Strange]

Firearms allow me to defend myself. Self defense is a natural right.

 

If self defence is a natural right then are firearms automatically a natural right as well? Perhaps the "natural" right is to defend yourself with no more than your attacker uses. On this basis you would have a right to use a gun if your attacker has one. But not if they only have a knife. Or words.

 

On the other hand, there are many who hold that violence is always wrong, even in self defence. So perhaps it is not a natural right anyway. You haven't explained how you know it is a "natural right"; you have just asserted that it is.

[dimreepr]

I have stated it many many times. Natural rights come from nature. Just like human beings come from nature. They are an essential part of our being.

 

 

 

Humans come from nature but our rights come from the collective understanding/agreement of humans and so are, obviously, changeable so being enlightened equals understanding not assumption.

 

Natural rights, in its purest form, refer to ones right to determine one’s own path through the choices we make; for instance, if I choose to wield a sword I must accept a sword may kill me.

[waitforufo]

 

Humans come from nature but our rights come from the collective understanding/agreement of humans and so are, obviously, changeable so being enlightened equals understanding not assumption.

 

Natural rights, in its purest form, refer to ones right to determine one’s own path through the choices we make; for instance, if I choose to wield a sword I must accept a sword may kill me.

This was not the understanding of the founders of the United States. If it were, how could they write the ninth amendment?

[Strange]

This was not the understanding of the founders of the United States. If it were, how could they write the ninth amendment?

 

Are you unwilling or unable to explain what a "natural right" is, and how we determine if any particular right is natural or not?

[swansont]

This was not the understanding of the founders of the United States. If it were, how could they write the ninth amendment?

Are you going to answer the questions I asked (did you miss them?), or is that only a one-way courtesy?

[dimreepr]

This was not the understanding of the founders of the United States. If it were, how could they write the ninth amendment?

 

 

Please explain?

[waitforufo]

Are you going to answer the questions I asked (did you miss them?), or is that only a one-way courtesy?

Of course not. This bouncing between topics is simply a bit tedious. Also this forum is simply a small entertainment aspect of my life.

 

Are humans the only ones who have natural rights?

By ones I'm assuming you mean other living things. I would say yes. Let's take lions, tigers and bears as an example. They are our natural predators. Do they have the right to eat us? I would say yes they do. But we also have the right to defend our own lives. So based on our right we can take their lives also. We are also predators by nature. We have through our evolution developed the ability to use animal parts for tools and clothing. Doing so is our natural relationship with animals. Does this give us the right to torture animals. I would say no. I'm sure all living things have the right to a torture free existence. Not being an animal, I'm not aware of there societal rights, but they do seem to have them. Even insects appear to have societal rights. Such questions would be better asked of a biologist. We in the US certainly treat living things as if they have rights. More on a species level then on the individual level. We set aside millions of acres of land. We work to insure clean water.

 

 

Do you really have a right if you are not permitted to exercise it?

Of course you do. The entire human rights movement is based on this fact. Human beings cannot flourish without their rights any more then they could without food, water, clothing, and shelter. They are essential to our being. All justice and compassion is based on this fact.

 

Please explain?

The ninth amendment

 

 

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ^[1]

You argue that governments grant rights. The ninth amendment says I have rights that are not found in the Constitution that cannot be denied or disparaged. With your way of thinking, how is this possible?

[Strange]

Still no definition of "natural rights" nor any evidence that such things exist.

[dimreepr]

The ninth amendment

 

 

That's NOT an explanation, it's a reiteration; so I ask again, please explain?

Edited October 28, 2015 by dimreepr

[Ten oz]

@ waotforufo, I don't think a single person in this forum has argued that all humans do not have a basic instinctive and nature need to defend themselves.You have specifically stated that humans have a natural right to guns. Not self defense broadly, but guns specifically.

In you lions, tiger, and bears explanation you suggest that since humans evolved to have the ability to use animals that it has basically became our right to do so. This suggests that humans have a right to anything we have developed/learned. If that is the case why are we limited to just guns? Why not chemical weapons and nuclear weapons?

[waitforufo]

This topic was split from a gun control in the United States topic. So it is associated to rights as understood in US law. In the United States our laws are founded on a concept of inalienable rights. Inalienable rights are a natural part of your being and cannot be justly separated from you. Why are they inalienable? How does one explain inalienable rights? In the United States does it matter? No, it does not matter in the United States.

 

I posted the following.

This was not the understanding of the founders of the United States. If it were, how could they write the ninth amendment?

 

dimreeper replied

 

 

Please explain?

I explained with the following.

 

 

The ninth amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ^[1]

You [dimreeper ] argue that governments grant rights. The ninth amendment says I have rights that are not found in the Constitution that cannot be denied or disparaged. With your way of thinking, how is this possible?

My question to dimreeper is consistent with United States laws which are founded on a concept natural inalienable rights.

 

I would still like dimreeper, who insists that rights come from government to provide an answer to " The ninth amendment says I have rights that are not found in the Constitution that cannot be denied or disparaged. With your way of thinking, how is this possible?" Also, if we all have such undefined rights, where did they come from. Maybe his answer will show me the error of my thinking.

[Strange]

So your only justification for "natural rights" is an argument from authority?

[swansont]

By ones I'm assuming you mean other living things. I would say yes. Let's take lions, tigers and bears as an example. They are our natural predators. Do they have the right to eat us? I would say yes they do. But we also have the right to defend our own lives. So based on our right we can take their lives also. We are also predators by nature. We have through our evolution developed the ability to use animal parts for tools and clothing. Doing so is our natural relationship with animals. Does this give us the right to torture animals. I would say no. I'm sure all living things have the right to a torture free existence. Not being an animal, I'm not aware of there societal rights, but they do seem to have them. Even insects appear to have societal rights. Such questions would be better asked of a biologist. We in the US certainly treat living things as if they have rights. More on a species level then on the individual level. We set aside millions of acres of land. We work to insure clean water.

So zoos are violation of animal rights.

 

But we don't recognize a right to kill humans, or even fight for dominance, as animals do. We have laws against that.

 

Of course you do. The entire human rights movement is based on this fact. Human beings cannot flourish without their rights any more then they could without food, water, clothing, and shelter. They are essential to our being. All justice and compassion is based on this fact.

The movement is based on not actually having those rights, and fighting to gain them. It's a pretty empty promise to say yoou have a right that you are forbidden to exercise. Why did we have a revolution if we already had those rights?

My question to dimreeper is consistent with United States laws which are founded on a concept natural inalienable rights.

 

Founded on the concept, yes. But wouldn't one be free (in principle) to found a country based on some other concept?

[Wolfhnd]

Anyone with even a modest understanding of history would conclude that the right to bear arms in the constitution is clearly related to militias and fortunately or unfortunately state rights and self determination. It is the nature of democracy that rights will always be in conflict and while it is supposed that no one can have a right that violates someone else's rights it is unrealistic to not expect that a hierarchy of rights will be necessary. The civil war established some limitations on state rights and therefor self determination but equating gun regulation with the gross violation of rights that slavery represents is not only unreasonable but demeans other basic rights. In the hierarchy of rights both gun ownership and gun regulation are not paramount. Freedom from violence is obviously a responsibility of the state that everyone has a right to expect but it is unclear and thus debatable what effect gun regulation would have on the issue of personal security. Regardless of how you view gun regulation self determination is a paramount right and holds a hierarchical position above state provided security within the following framework.

 

When there is no clear evidence that the paramount rights of minorities are being violated by the self interest of the majority our legal traditions is to allow regulation as part of self determination. In the case of gun ownership the constitution has clearly decided that the right to bear arms and protect self determination overrides the right of the population to expect the government to provide security from gun violence. If you don't agree you should work toward having the second amendment overturned.

[dimreepr]

The ninth amendment

You argue that governments grant rights. The ninth amendment says I have rights that are not found in the Constitution that cannot be denied or disparaged. With your way of thinking, how is this possible?

 

 

Because of these three words “of certain rights” which I’m sure was intended for fundamental rights like the right to life.

 

Until you can grasp the fact that your “natural inalienable” rights have changed and will change again (despite the ninth amendment) through the natural processes of a democracy, this debate is just gainsay and pointless.

[swansont]

Because of these three words “of certain rights” which I’m sure was intended for fundamental rights like the right to life.

 

Until you can grasp the fact that your “natural inalienable” rights have changed and will change again (despite the ninth amendment) through the natural processes of a democracy, this debate is just gainsay and pointless.

Indeed. At one time you could own another human being. That changed. For a period of time, you did not have the right to purchase alcoholoic beverages. The people, at any time, could decide to change what rights they have, because of the Constitution. But if you are subject to a government which is not based on the same premise(s), all bets are off. (It's one reason people emigrate)

[Ten oz]

This topic was split from a gun control in the United States topic. So it is associated to rights as understood in US law. In the United States our laws are founded on a concept of inalienable rights. Inalienable rights are a natural part of your being and cannot be justly separated from you. Why are they inalienable? How does one explain inalienable rights? In the United States does it matter? No, it does not matter in the United States.

"all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

 

As written in the Declaration of Independence unalienablbe rights are endowed ones "Creator". You read that to mean evolution or nature broadly?

 

"All men" clearly did not mean all humans to the founders considering the fact that many were slave owners, actively subjugated natives, and did not provide equal rights to women. Your interpretation of where unalienable rights come from and whom is entitled to them is not explained or supported by the Declaration of Independence.

 

You still have not address why ones "natural right" to self defense/protection is limited to guns?

Anyone with even a modest understanding of history would conclude that the right to bear arms in the constitution is clearly related to militias and fortunately or unfortunately state rights and self determination. It is the nature of democracy that rights will always be in conflict and while it is supposed that no one can have a right that violates someone else's rights it is unrealistic to not expect that a hierarchy of rights will be necessary. The civil war established some limitations on state rights and therefor self determination but equating gun regulation with the gross violation of rights that slavery represents is not only unreasonable but demeans other basic rights. In the hierarchy of rights both gun ownership and gun regulation are not paramount. Freedom from violence is obviously a responsibility of the state that everyone has a right to expect but it is unclear and thus debatable what effect gun regulation would have on the issue of personal security. Regardless of how you view gun regulation self determination is a paramount right and holds a hierarchical position above state provided security within the following framework.

 

When there is no clear evidence that the paramount rights of minorities are being violated by the self interest of the majority our legal traditions is to allow regulation as part of self determination. In the case of gun ownership the constitution has clearly decided that the right to bear arms and protect self determination overrides the right of the population to expect the government to provide security from gun violence. If you don't agree you should work toward having the second amendment overturned.

Is the 2nd admendment limiting in how an individual or militia practices security?

[waitforufo]

Because of these three words “of certain rights” which I’m sure was intended for fundamental rights like the right to life.

No it was a direct reference to the rights previously mentioned in the proceeding eight amendments. In case you missed it, the 2nd amendment was one of those.

 

Wait a minute. Where does this "right to life" come from? What makes it fundamental? How are "fundamental" rights different from "natural" rights?

 

Given a little more time I'm sure you could find lots of rights not mentioned in the constitution that you believe are fundamental.

 

For example do women have the right to there own bodies, particularly with respect to abortion? Do you have the right to a confidential relationship with your doctor, lawyer, or religious counselor? Give it a try. I'm sure you will think of many.

 

Think of it another way. How do you want the government to think about your rights? Do you really want the government to think all of your rights are decided by them? Even if that them is the majority of the people? Or do you like the idea that your rights are inalienable?

 

Swansont,

Don't feel neglected. I'll try to get back to you later.

[Strange]

Wait a minute. Where does this "right to life" come from? What makes it fundamental?

 

This is what I am waiting for you to explain (on the assumption that this is the same as a "natural" right).

 

I could understand if you said they were God-given rights, because then you could point to a Book and say, "look, here". As it is, "they come from nature" is meaningless. So does polyester.

[dimreepr]

No it was a direct reference to the rights previously mentioned in the proceeding eight amendments. In case you missed it, the 2nd amendment was one of those.

 

 

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/9th+Amendment

 

 

The Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is somewhat of an enigma. It provides that the naming of certain rights in the Constitution does not take away from the people

rights that are not named. Yet neither the language nor the history of the Ninth Amendment offers any hints as to the nature of the rights it was designed to protect.

 

Edited October 29, 2015 by dimreepr

[waitforufo]

 

 

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/9th+Amendment

 

 

Perhaps you should also read Griswold.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

 

The ninth amendment is not an enigma to those who appreciate the philosophy of natural rights as our founders did. Also, you must have missed this part.

 

 

 

The Federalists contended that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because in their view the federal government possessed only limited powers that were expressly delegated to it by the Constitution. They believed that all powers notconstitutionally delegated to the federal government were inherently reserved to the people and the states. Nowhere in the Constitution, the Federalists pointed out, is the federal government given the power to trample on individualliberties. The Federalists feared that if the Constitution were to include a Bill of Rights that protected certain liberties from government encroachment, an inference would be drawn that the federal government could exercise an implied power to regulate such liberties.

Only limited powers. Since this topic was spawned from a gun control topic. Where does the constitution, minus the bill of rights, empower the government to regulate my right to keep and bear arms? Aren't you trying to exercise an implied power to regulate my liberties?

[Ten oz]

Perhaps you should also read Griswold.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

 

The ninth amendment is not an enigma to those who appreciate the philosophy of natural rights as our founders did. Also, you must have missed this part.

 

 

Only limited powers. Since this topic was spawned from a gun control topic. Where does the constitution, minus the bill of rights, empower the government to regulate my right to keep and bear arms? Aren't you trying to exercise an implied power to regulate my liberties?

 

Is the Government empowered to regulate your right to keep explosives?

[iNow]

"all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

 

As written in the Declaration of Independence unalienablbe rights are endowed ones "Creator". You read that to mean evolution or nature broadly?

 

"All men" clearly did not mean all humans to the founders considering the fact that many were slave owners, actively subjugated natives, and did not provide equal rights to women. Your interpretation of where unalienable rights come from and whom is entitled to them is not explained or supported by the Declaration of Independence.

 

You still have not address why ones "natural right" to self defense/protection is limited to guns?

While I tend to agree with the overall thrust of your position, I think it's weakened on two fronts.

 

One - The inclusion of the "endowed by ones creator" phrase was apparently a late edit that came from Ben Franklin in an attempt to increase likelihood that all states would sign on. It was not in the original draft nor even several of the drafts that came after that. I posted about this some time ago here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/37895-framersfounders-religious-beliefs/?p=476794

 

Two - The declaration of independence is not a governing document. While it helps to speak to the spirit of our nation, and comments on guiding philosophy with regard to human rights, it is not terribly relevant in terms of constitutional protections.

 

Again though, I align with the core point you're making. Maybe just being pedantic.

[waitforufo]

The Declaration of Independence also speaks of the "Laws of Nature". Rights are an issue of law.

 

I agree with your comment regarding the edit by Ben Franklin and the phrase "endowed by ones creator" but with one exception. Invoking the creator or god in law is not necessarily a religious reference or endorsement. For example a person is not generally considered liable if a second party is harmed on there property by some natural act like a lightning strike or an earthquake. Such natural events are commonly referred to as "acts of god" in law. So invoking the creator in "endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights", Ben was simply reinforcing the concept of inalienable rights. It does not need to be taken as a religious statement or an endorsement of religion or belief in god or a creator. So when someone points to the Declaration of Independence and says our country was founded on religious principals, that statement is ignorant.

 

I wish I had a reference for that legal understanding of "acts of god". I took a business law class as an undergraduate, where liability was a central focus. That "acts of god" bit was in the course book and taught in the class. I think I sold that book back to the campus bookstore and bought beer an pizza.

found it.

 

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

Edited October 29, 2015 by waitforufo

[iNow]

The Declaration of Independence also speaks of the "Laws of Nature". Rights are an issue of law.

I'm admittedly confused by this comment. At first glance, it seems contrary to the stance you've been arguing. Specifcally, you've been saying rights come from nature, yet here you acknowledge that rights are an issue of law (as others have been arguing in response to your posts).

 

Maybe it's a little bit of both? Your mention of "acts of God" being a valid consideration in liability suggests you may be thinking that rights pre-exist laws even though laws often shape or limit those rights in practice. Is that fair, or did I totally miss the mark?

 

I just want to understand where you're coming from. I'm pretty sure we all have a ton of overlap in our thinking on this topic, even though brevity in our posts and peripheral issues sometimes occlude that consensus.

 

I wish I had a reference for that legal understanding of "acts of god". I took a business law class as an undergraduate, where liability was a central focus. That "acts of god" bit was in the course book and taught in the class. I think I sold that book back to the campus bookstore and bought beer an pizza.

When I was in school, we could buy a keg after selling our books back. With how much books cost today (which is both insane and off-topic), one could probably buy a whole condo!