The Second Amendment and the "Right" to Bear Arms

[arthwollipot]

Personally, I'm of the opinion that there shouldn't be a right to bear arms.

Why is arming oneself with a potentially deadly weapon considered something that all Americans have a right to do? I don't see it as anything like the right to freedom of speech or assembly, or religion, or anything outlined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Why in America - as far as I know alone in the developed world - is gun ownership considered a right?

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

Are you asking why, historically? That's pretty easy to learn about. Or are you asking why, philosophically? The answer still lies in the history. Not sure there's a lot to talk about here. The history is known and the positions of those who don't agree with the right are also known.

 

[Ladewig]

Personally, I'm of the opinion that there shouldn't be a right to bear arms.

Why is arming oneself with a potentially deadly weapon considered something that all Americans have a right to do? I don't see it as anything like the right to freedom of speech or assembly, or religion, or anything outlined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Why in America - as far as I know alone in the developed world - is gun ownership considered a right?

It is considered a right because it was listed as a right in the country's founding documents. Second amendment and all that.

 

[gumboot]

Personally, I'm of the opinion that there shouldn't be a right to bear arms.

Why is arming oneself with a potentially deadly weapon considered something that all Americans have a right to do? I don't see it as anything like the right to freedom of speech or assembly, or religion, or anything outlined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Why in America - as far as I know alone in the developed world - is gun ownership considered a right?

Well, there's probably a few aspects to it. One is the reason it was originally written in as a right, and the second is why it has never been repealed.

In all instances, I think the circumstances surrounding the establishment of the USA created a cultural climate of fear and mistrust; initially fear and mistrust of government, but more recently fear and mistrust of fellow citizens.

It's this cultural phenomenon, I think, that is behind the American stance that citizens should be entitled to arm themselves in normal society.

It's worth noting that most other western countries have their origins in much older states, and the cultural idea of armament in normal society as a privilege rather than a right is deeply entrenched, going back, literally, thousands of years.

 

[Cylinder]

Because we said so is the best answer I can give. In the US, the ideal government is one where the people - not a cabal of governments, some liberal democracies, some genocidal theocracies - instruct the government on law as opposed to being instructed.

 

[gumboot]

Because we said so is the best answer I can give. In the US, the ideal government is one where the people - not a cabal of governments, some liberal democracies, some genocidal theocracies - instruct the government on law as opposed to being instructed.

I think it goes without saying that it's considered a right because the populace considers it a right. That's not really contributing anything. The more pertinent question is why the populace of the USA considers something a right that the populace of no other free, liberal, democratic nation considers a right.

It's an interesting question, isn't it? So many of our cultural values in the west are shared between nations, it's fascinating when you come across these characteristics that are unique to one country or another, particularly when the impact on the society in question is so profound.

 

[arthwollipot]

Because we said so is the best answer I can give. In the US, the ideal government is one where the people - not a cabal of governments, some liberal democracies, some genocidal theocracies - instruct the government on law as opposed to being instructed.

So it's an arbitrary right, not an inherent right? How does that make it equal to the inherent right to (for example) free speech?

 

[Pope130]

The question of why it is a right under the constitution has been addressed quite well. If the question is why it should be a right, then that's a bit more philosophical.

For me, the answer is that I believe that there is an inherant human right of self defense. Accepting that, there must also be a right to access to the means of self defense. At this point the most effective means of defense from personal attack are individual firearms. Similarly the right to freedom of the press implies a right to acquire a printing press (or these days, a radio or TV station, internet access and so on).

 

[Cylinder]

It's an interesting question, isn't it? So many of our cultural values in the west are shared between nations, it's fascinating when you come across these characteristics that are unique to one country or another, particularly when the impact on the society in question is so profound.

It's sad for me that the issue is so easily devolved through propaganda. It's a pretty recent development that our mother country reorganized their firearm laws. Britain had the same gun culture that the US had but went in a different direction. The main difference is that the UK viewed fully-endowed subjects along class lines having to do with pedigree, patronage and economic status and the US laws developed generally along the line of slavery.

Our militia is the fyrd. The lord of the hall is an elected executive. The people are equal in rank.

 

[Globert]

From your link...
Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person

Article 17.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

..so, my gun ensures my security per article 3. and is my property per article 17 and I'll buy ammo with my social security sustenance per article 22.

What's wrong?

 

[Cylinder]

So it's an arbitrary right, not an inherent right? How does that make it equal to the inherent right to (for example) free speech?

No. Our common law views them as inherent rights. There's a good argument that the text of the first ten amendments make them immune from repeal.

 

[arthwollipot]

From your link...
Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person

Article 17.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

..so, my gun ensures my security per article 3. and is my property per article 17 and I'll buy ammo with my social security sustenance per article 22.

What's wrong?

I expected this response. What's wrong is that Americans, for some reason, believe that the right to bear arms is necessary to uphold articles 3 and 17 of the UNDHR, whereas people from no other developed nation do.

Living in Australia, with no right to bear arms, I do not find my right to life, liberty or security infringed. These rights are upheld by my country's military and law enforcement, and I reap the benefit of that without being required to bear arms myself. And that works for me.

What is it about America that they feel they should consider gun possession a right when no other developed nation does?

(Note that I am specifically referring to developed nations - what is usually and erroneously called the first world. Developing nations have their own problems which I do not wish to directly address here.)

 

[Globert]

I expected this response. What's wrong is that Americans, for some reason, believe that the right to bear arms is necessary to uphold articles 3 and 17 of the UNDHR, whereas people from no other developed nation do.

Living in Australia, with no right to bear arms, I do not find my right to life, liberty or security infringed. These rights are upheld by my country's military and law enforcement, and I reap the benefit of that without being required to bear arms myself. And that works for me.

What is it about America that they feel they should consider gun possession a right when no other developed nation does?

(Note that I am specifically referring to developed nations - what is usually and erroneously called the first world. Developing nations have their own problems which I do not wish to directly address here.)

What's right with America is I beg no pleading for my life and environment, it is my responsibility to ensure my own security, that you may assume less does not relieve me of my moral duty to self and family. American liberty has some flaws, but we are free to do as we will when we will within the law, ours includes guns. Firearms are the extension of rocks and sticks, evolved through time to the powerful portable instruments of will they are today. I owe it to my family to have the very best.

 

[Cylinder]

These rights are upheld by my country's military and law enforcement, and I reap the benefit of that without being required to bear arms myself.

In American political philosophy, you're defining a power. Our respective governments have been entrusted generally with the power to intervene when certain rights are violated, but those rights do not depend or the government's ability or willingness to enforce them.

 

[Cylinder]

I guess this thread would be incomplete without considering the framers' word on the subject:

Congress OF THE United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

 

[The Norseman]

I think it goes without saying that it's considered a right because the populace considers it a right. That's not really contributing anything. The more pertinent question is why the populace of the USA considers something a right that the populace of no other free, liberal, democratic nation considers a right.

It's an interesting question, isn't it? So many of our cultural values in the west are shared between nations, it's fascinating when you come across these characteristics that are unique to one country or another, particularly when the impact on the society in question is so profound.

One of the issues over which the Founders wished to secede was the British governments' confiscation of firearms. The Bill of Rights was in direct response to abuses that the Founders felt should be guarded against for all time.

 

[angrysoba]

This has surely come up in the past, but the US right to bear arms was not unique in history at all. In fact, the 1689 Bill of Rights in England following the Glorious Revolution set the template in many ways, including rather obvious similarities in language for the US Bill of Rights, and one of the enumerated rights was that people not have their right to arms infringed by Royalty.

There are other clear parallels with the later American document here, including an independent judiciary and the forbidding of "cruel and unusual" punishments, freedom of speech, freedom to petition government:

The Bill of Rights laid out certain basic rights for (at the time) all Englishmen. The Act set out that there should be:

no royal interference with the law. Though the sovereign remains the fount of justice, he or she cannot unilaterally establish new courts or act as a judge.

no taxation by Royal Prerogative. The agreement of the parliament became necessary for the implementation of any new taxes

freedom to petition the monarch without fear of retribution

no standing army may be maintained during a time of peace without the consent of parliament.[7]

no royal interference in the freedom of the people to have arms for their own defence as suitable to their class and as allowed by law (simultaneously restoring rights previously taken from Protestants by James II)

no royal interference in the election of members of parliament

the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament

"grants and promises of fines or forfeitures" before conviction are void
no excessive bail or "cruel and unusual" punishments may be imposed

 

[fromdownunder]

I think that one of the issues that we non Americans do not understand is that "arms" at the time of the Second Amendment are a tad different than the "arms" available today.

Would the people who passed the amendment even have conceived a gun that could shoot 100 rounds in under a minute, or a pony nuke in a briefcase, or a tank? Does the right to bear arms include a nuclear missile, and if not, why not? The Second amendment does not prevent a private person from owning Nuclear Missiles.

The whole thing to me, is not the right to bear "arms", it is simply that the "arms" presently available are so far in excess in what was possible way back then, that had those people conceived what would be available in 2013, perhaps they may have put at least some limitations on what Joe Public should have a right to own.

Yes, I understand that the Supreme Court has made rulings from time to time over the limitations of the Second Amendment, but I really do not think that semi-assault rifles were ever in the mind of the persons who originally decided that the right to bear arms should include such beasts.

Norm

 

[Kahalachan]

Anything that does not infringe on another's rights, ought to be a right.


Owning a gun doesn't hurt anyone. Speaking doesn't hurt anyone. Assembling doesn't hurt anyone.

The wrong person could shoot someone. Some threats and private information can be spoken. A riot can break out at an assembly.

That there are unfortunate events tied to things we consider rights doesn't mean those rights were wrong to begin with.


My philosophy extends to everything. The most ridiculous, disgusting, and questionable acts. If a sign language speaking chimp expresses a desire to have sex with a human and that human engages, then I'm fine with that. It didn't infringe on anyone's rights.


If someone wants to own a gun, I'm fine with that. Because of how easily abused that right is and how severe the consequences may be, I do believe in restrictions placed to make sure that it isn't abused. But I'm certainly not against the right.

 

[simonxlong]

From another point of view, I think gun ownership has a lot to do with America as a culture. As a nation, our history is young. Our nation was founded in 1776, and any sort of sense of Americans as a separate, distinct culture came into existence only a short time prior to that. Our entire history is built on the accomplishments of heroes and villains wielding firearms.

First came Washington, and the soldiers of the Revolution. Then the pioneers, going out alone to make a living trapping furs, with only their trusty firearms at their side. The old west and the gunfighters, and so on. I mean, almost all our folk heroes carried guns, and were special because of their skill with them. (Crockett, Boone, Jesse James, Hitchock, etc...)

To put it in perspective, the Lady of the Lake didn't give King Arthur a Colt and Robin Hood didn't rob people with a Winchester. I think that firearms have played such a part in American culture that we can't divorce ourselves from them, so we come up with excuses and reasons that they are essential and necessary.