Where does the idea that guns are a right come from?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Harvard Gun Study
- Thread starter metis
- Start date
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Trained, certified, screened, evaluated, and periodically re-evaluated.
It comes from many sources, including the more ancient right to own more primitive weapons.....
- The principle of dominium in Roman law gave the right of defense of self, family & property, thus implying ownership of state of the art weapons.
- English Common Law recognized the right to bear arms for self defense.
- The English 1689 Bill Of Rights granted the specific right to bear arms (for Protestants).
- The US Constitution's 2nd Amendment
Its unclear exactly where the modern idea of it comes from, because the reason seems to have changed over time. Its recognized as a right in an amendment to the US constitution, but the rights listed therein are not rights granted by government but recognized rights. I'm fairly sure the modern conception of this right is not the same as what it once was. In other words, the ideas have changed; but the wording of the right to bear arms remains. I believe originally this right was put in place as a reaction against the British colonial powers, who tended to strip citizens here of various rights. Its a complicated question to research.
Every single one of those is obsolete at the very least. The 2nd Amendment perhaps most of all. I have read it and it is a prodigy of creativity that it is at all raised in support of the current craze of gun ownership. Even if it offer such support, it is still well over 200 years old and has plenty earned the right of being revised.
But I answered your question about the origins.
Where did the idea that we don't have gun rights originate?
It is a natural consequence of the idea of social contract.
There are many approaches to the "social contract".
Which one has a history of disarming citizens?
Well...Rome, actually.
Hey, you bought ancient history into it...!
Civil militia were not armed, and Roman Legions and even auxillaries were not stationed within the Roman city itself due to paranoia over military coups, etc. Actually, I probably shouldn't call it paranoia, given their history.
It should be stated, that's not hard and fast over the entire period of the Empire, but it's a general truth.
It's only a discussion.
I've no objection to straight answers to questions.
The whole issue of gun rights doesn't hinge on origins anyway.
Rome.....I rooted for Spartacus.
I mighta known, ya damn hippie.
The question is rather which ones succeeded among a gun craze, I think.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
The Constitution. Sorry, more accurately The Bill of Rights.
The idea of allowing citizens to be able to have weapons was to create balance of power. My understanding is that the founding fathers of USA thought that the government would grab power and make the people powerless, but if the people had the unrestricted right to defend themselves from the government and even create militia, the balance would be made. A government that has the right to weapons and a people who doesn't will produce a country contrary to the idea of a democracy. Well, that's my understanding to why the right to have guns was put in the constitution. Someone who knows these things better than me is free to correct me on this.
Last edited:
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Obsolete? Fundamental law from which a country is building its laws to be considered obsolete? I sure hope not.
The Bill of Rights is the list of rights given to the people. All laws is supposed to be drawn from it. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are to be considered fundamental law in this country. To undo or remove any of them is to undo the idea of united states. You could think these as being the primary axioms or premises for the country as a whole and all what it's supposed to stands for.
The right to bear arms is considered the same as the right to defend yourself. If someone attacks you, is it your right to defend yourself? That's what it represents.
The problem is rather that the founders didn't imagine the kind of weapons we have today. They probably thought it wouldn't be more dangerous weapons like fully automatic and such.
I have read the 2nd Amendment. It was of very questionable suitability to the justification of free gun ownership in the 18th century. In fact, it works better as an argument against such ownership, and I expect that to have been true even back in the day.
It is utterly unsuitable now, when firearms are so drammatically more dangerous and the disparity between civilian and governmental firepower is so huge at the same time. One has to wonder if the Founding Fathers would even have any respect for the current understanding of it.
It does not state or even imply that the militia should be capable of standing up against the government. In fact, it states very little indeed, no doubt intentionally. It is basically a request with lots of rather vague qualifiers, which helps explain why it is taking so long for people to accept that it says nothing useful.
That danger apparently failed to materialize, well, anywhere.
Well, that's my understanding to why the right to have guns was put in the constitution. Someone who knows these things better than me is free to correct me on this.
I don't think it was, as explained above. But I recognize that the lure is strong, all the more so when one is raised in a gun-thirsty culture.
Laws are not worth a lot in the first place, and laws about firearms rights that are literally unaware of the firearms development of the last 200 years ought to be disregarded summarily, IMO. It is awkward to see them treated as sacred principles or somesuch. That is a role that they could not be expected to fit even originally, let alone now.
Are we still talking about gun rights? Because I just don't see how you could fit those into such abstract ideas, particularly if we are talking about rights and firearms. Firearms are simply not very related to rights at all. Certainly not as tools for their protection.
I don't think I will ever see any sense on such statements, sorry.
I don't think it is at all reasonable to expect them to have such preternatural foresight... or to fail to know better than them about social and political realities that are so plainly different from theirs, anyway. You have no more duty to follow their expectations about firearms then you have to follow those about slaves, IMO.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
The Bill of Rights is part of the constitution, specifically the first 10 amendments.
That is incorrect. The Founders put the second in there so citizens could form "well regulated militias." And it wasn't so they could fight against the government, but so they could defend themselves from various threats, especially back in a day when it would take days for Washington to get word before they could organize a response. It wasn't about balancing power, it was about ensuring regular citizens could band together and defend themselves at a moments notice.The idea of allowing citizens to be able to have weapons was to create balance of power. My understanding is that the founding fathers of USA thought that the government would grab power and make the people powerless, but if the people had the unrestricted right to defend themselves from the government and even create militia, the balance would be made. A government that has the right to weapons and a people who doesn't will produce a country contrary to the idea of a democracy. Well, that's my understanding to why the right to have guns was put in the constitution. Someone who knows these things better than me is free to correct me on this.
And the Founders were not, by any means, stupid. They would have known that no matter what, government militaries are far more capable at fighting than citizens banding together. They witnessed their own troops, who were largely farmers, struggle to even hold a line during the Revolution, and they were very aware they would not have won without the aid of the French. There is a huge difference between the militias of the various towns, and their training and access to materials, when compared to the training and materials of the federal government's military. It's really no different than today, where we have some people thinking they need their guns to fight against the government, even though they will be overpowered, out trained, and out gunned by the military.
However, the Founders didn't want towns to be defensless, so they granted the right for people to possess firearms for the intention of forming a well regulated militia. Many people today conveniently ignore that "militia" part.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
The article did not suggest that the police need to be disarmed, nor do I recommend as such. Nor does the article suggest that all guns for all people need to be removed, nor do I recommend as such. What it does suggest is that a proliferation or arms widely distributed within a community doesn't make it safer but actually more dangerous. What you are doing is to take this to an extreme that is not suggested by either the article nor myself.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
The 2nd Amendment actually deals with state militias, but there's a complicating factor with what became known as the "minutemen", namely citizens that were armed that could be called up on an emergency basis.
The SCOTUS has never taken the position that all people here have a "right to bear arms", and some prohibitions on both who may own them and which kind of weapons should be made illegal has often been upheld by the courts.
The SCOTUS has never taken the position that all people here have a "right to bear arms", and some prohibitions on both who may own them and which kind of weapons should be made illegal has often been upheld by the courts.
Some thoughts on bearing arms.....
Rights don't come from the various gods or physics. We humans collectively decide upon them.
The right to bear arms here in Americastan exists solely because we currently believe it's a right. By analogy, gay marriage recently wasn't a right, but became one when consensus rose to the level that government recognized it. The right to bear arms was formally recognized as a right when the Constitution (including the Bill Of Rights) was ratified. For now, the USSC has interpreted the 2nd Amendment to mean that individuals have this right. This could change if some day there's overwhelming opposition to it, & the USSC invents a new interpretation which voids the right.
A commonly heard claim is that the 2nd Amendment grants government the right to bear arms, not the individual citizens.
There's a major problem with this.
The 2nd Amendment is in the Bill Of Rights, which was added to allay the fears of anti-federalists that an authoritarian government would have too much centralized power.
The Bill of Rights: A Brief History | American Civil Liberties Union
Some argue that the 2nd Amendment is obsolete. Even if this were true, it is nonetheless still the law. Unless it's legally repealed, our government is obligated to honor this right. If politicians were to void it by fiat, then this would signal that we have a government too big for its britches.
Note: This is a problem which threatens our other rights too, eg, erosion of the right to trial by jury (under the USSC's Petty Offense Doctrine).
In this nuclear age, are small arms still irrelevant? Taking a look around the world, we see that small arms often play a significant role in warfare & revolutions. While this could change with new technologies (eg, drones), soldiers with small arms are still players.
Why do some believe in the right, while others deny it?
They're 2 fundamentally different kinds of people.
Type 1:
They see themselves as individuals, separate from the government they allow to rule. There's a separation of responsibilities, particularly self defense because of government's extremely limited ability to defend individuals when assaulted. They see a right (even obligation) to defend themselves against aggressors within & without even potentially their own government if it becomes oppressive.
Type 2:
They trust government to take care of them, & do what is right. They need no means of revolution because government provides security against threats within & without the country. They are loyal bees in a hive.
Looking at the above, it strikes me that no study of guns or violence will change the fundamentals of gun rights.
Rights don't come from the various gods or physics. We humans collectively decide upon them.
The right to bear arms here in Americastan exists solely because we currently believe it's a right. By analogy, gay marriage recently wasn't a right, but became one when consensus rose to the level that government recognized it. The right to bear arms was formally recognized as a right when the Constitution (including the Bill Of Rights) was ratified. For now, the USSC has interpreted the 2nd Amendment to mean that individuals have this right. This could change if some day there's overwhelming opposition to it, & the USSC invents a new interpretation which voids the right.
A commonly heard claim is that the 2nd Amendment grants government the right to bear arms, not the individual citizens.
There's a major problem with this.
The 2nd Amendment is in the Bill Of Rights, which was added to allay the fears of anti-federalists that an authoritarian government would have too much centralized power.
The Bill of Rights: A Brief History | American Civil Liberties Union
To argue that the 2nd Amendment is separate from this philosophy of people's rights flies in the face of its origins, & would be inconsistent with the other rights codified in the Bill Of Rights.
Some argue that the 2nd Amendment is obsolete. Even if this were true, it is nonetheless still the law. Unless it's legally repealed, our government is obligated to honor this right. If politicians were to void it by fiat, then this would signal that we have a government too big for its britches.
Note: This is a problem which threatens our other rights too, eg, erosion of the right to trial by jury (under the USSC's Petty Offense Doctrine).
In this nuclear age, are small arms still irrelevant? Taking a look around the world, we see that small arms often play a significant role in warfare & revolutions. While this could change with new technologies (eg, drones), soldiers with small arms are still players.
Why do some believe in the right, while others deny it?
They're 2 fundamentally different kinds of people.
Type 1:
They see themselves as individuals, separate from the government they allow to rule. There's a separation of responsibilities, particularly self defense because of government's extremely limited ability to defend individuals when assaulted. They see a right (even obligation) to defend themselves against aggressors within & without even potentially their own government if it becomes oppressive.
Type 2:
They trust government to take care of them, & do what is right. They need no means of revolution because government provides security against threats within & without the country. They are loyal bees in a hive.
Looking at the above, it strikes me that no study of guns or violence will change the fundamentals of gun rights.
Last edited: