“This is not Tokyo, this is not Finland. This is the United States of America.” – Texas Lieutenant Governor candidate Dan Patrick, To GOP, gun rights a big weapon for votes [at dallasnews.com]
“This is not Tokyo, this is not Finland. This is the United States of America.” – Texas Lieutenant Governor candidate Dan Patrick, To GOP, gun rights a big weapon for votes [at dallasnews.com]
“… Our constitution gives us the right to bear arms. …”
Hey, now wait a minute. I though the right to protect ones self and to keep and bear arms was a God-given, natural right that all people possessed. I'm pretty sure I learned that factoid right here on TTAG.
And here too.
Government can’t grant a right but it can take it away.
Not legitimately….
Not always legitimately. Some people actually belong in prison. I’d even go so far as to say that some people deserve the death penalty. Those are legitimate denials of rights.
If someone has served their sentence, they should be full-fledged citizens again and get their rights back.
If someone’s too dangerous to let that happen, then their sentence needs to be longer, or their parole needs to be for the rest of their life.
Government can neither grant nor revoke basic rights, but it can protect or prevent the free exercise of a right.
A prisoner has had the right of free travel curtailed, for instance, along with several others.
Other rights are not basic — the right to a jury trial, for instance. While some means by which to defeat a false charge is a basic right, the details of implementation are not.
What is and what is not a right or a privilege is a complex and far-ranging discussion, but RKBA is a logical extrapolation of the basic right to defend ones own sovereign self by tooth, nail and wit.
‘Course, there are many hereabouts who believe in rights for themselves, but not others — say the right to free speech or to not be forced to work twelve hours/seven days in a locked building without break just to barely survive…
While the concept of natural, God-given rights is at the core of the Declaration & the Constitution, they remain assertions rather than settled facts.
“they remain assertions rather than settled facts.”
Only in the minds of those who would deny them to others.
It is written in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States that those rights are unalienable. That means any law that violates the Constitution is null and void. They are neither ‘assertions’ nor even ‘facts.’ They are THE RULES.
So if they weren’t written there they wouldn’t be…?
Not at all. The 9th amendment states “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Rights are rights, the enumeration or lack thereof does not change that.
Actually, inalienable appears only in the Declaration.
The Constitution generally applies only to citizens; just go to Guantanamo and ask about inalienable rights.
Incorrect. You have stumbled upon the reason these prisoners are at Guantanamo instead of here in the actual USA. Once they are on real-live US soil the constitution applies. It is legal sleight of hand. It is still being argued that the rights should still apply there.
Here in the USA proper, constitutional rights apply to everyone. They are considered God-given, or inherent, or natural rights, how can anything else be true? These rights can only be subject to deprivation through due process of law.
Yes. The fact is that government is violating rights willy-nilly, and something must be done!
I say, write me in for president in 2016. I’ll fire the whole damn federal government, except for those people who are expresstly provided for in the Constitution.
They are THE RULES.
They are a set of rules, and those which govern the United States. There are countless other sets of rules out there, as well.
Determining which set of “rules” by which one is governed has been the central conflict of mankind as long we’ve been mankind.
So if they weren’t written there they wouldn’t be…?
It depends if you think that “rights” exist outside the mind and actions of humans. I don’t.
The rights exist unconditionally. The Constitution is the charter for the government, spelling out its functions and defining its powers, with express prohibitions against violating some of the most important rights.
They’re breaking those prohibitions daily, but nobody seems to have the power to actually make them stop.
That’s why everyone should write me in on the 2016 ballot, or lobby to have the Radical Libertarian Loon™ party put on the ballot. 😉
Not at all. The 9th amendment states “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Rights are rights, the enumeration or lack thereof does not change that.
The assertion in the 9th Amendment that certain rights exists does not make it so.
One can argue semantics all day, I choose not to do so, since your assertion that you exist does not make it so.
They’re self-evident.
If you deny them, you’re simply a fool or a plant.
One can argue semantics all day, I choose not to do so, since your assertion that you exist does not make it so.
One can demonstrate via repeatable scientific evidence that a given human being (me, for instance) exists.
The same cannot be said for “rights”, any more than you can prove that concepts such as morality have an objective reality outside of human thought.
Actually one cannot, it is merely a matter of perception. Your senses, which are your perceptions, convey what seems correct to you…but may be entirely incorrect. It used to be only philosophers who would speak in such terms, now physicists are entirely comfortable with such concepts.
You cannot “prove” your existence. Any subject you wish to argue can be given the same treatment.
They are considered God-given, or inherent, or natural rights, how can anything else be true?
Humans invented those rights, and they are only enforced via the use of force.
Robert A. Heinlein put it better than I could hope to (no surprise there), I’ll just quote him.
“Ah yes, [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness]… Life? What ‘right’ to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What ‘right’ to life has a man who must die to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of ‘right’? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man’s right is ‘unalienable’? And is it ‘right’? As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost. The third ‘right’?—the ‘pursuit of happiness’? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can ‘pursue happiness’ as long as my brain lives—but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can ensure that I will catch it.”
Source: Lt. Col. Jean V. Dubois (Ret.), Page 119
Expanding on his statement that “a human being has no natural rights of any nature.”
By the same token, the authority of the Federal government to infringe on our rights is an assertion, not a settled fact. It is asserted by force, of course – all government is force. Our right to keep and bear arms is the only argument that a government can really understand – which explains why the Democrats and “progressives” are so eager to terminate that right.
You cannot “prove” your existence. Any subject you wish to argue can be given the same treatment.
You can show repeatable, verifiable scientific evidence of your existence. The same cannot be said for “rights”.
No, you cannot do so of your existence. You might need to look up the scientific method.
“I though the right to protect ones self and to keep and bear arms was a God-given, natural right “
Well the left and most of the Democratic party has an answer for you…..
There ain’t no God…..and just in case if there is, we voted him out at our gay marriage bash last year.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cncbOEoQbOg
Then Evolution gave them to us. Who would deny that evolution granted us the right to self-preservation? If you don’t preserve yourself, your genetic line dies. Forever.
And the only reference to “God” in the Declaration of the Constitution is “Nature’s God,” so either way, Freedom is better.
But the Declaration states that our Creator, whether that Creator is God, Evolution, Panspermia, or The Flying Spaghettii Monster, did endow us with certain inalienable rights. The Constitution merely codifies them and guarantees that they will not be infringed.
Then Evolution gave them to us. Who would deny that evolution granted us the right to self-preservation? If you don’t preserve yourself, your genetic line dies. Forever.
To many on the left, humans are just a blight on their precious blue orb. The left is willing to sacrifice millions of human lives to “protect Mother Earth”. Case in point…support for bans on DDT versus millions dying from disease.
What you say about some liberals being willing to slaughter millions in the name of the environment is true (though I think a bit optimistic; i think many want to slaughter billions), but it has zilch, zero, nada to do with anything that Rich Grise actually said.
“To many on the left, humans are just a blight on their precious blue orb. The left is willing to sacrifice millions of human lives to “protect Mother Earth”.”
What is so difficult to understand is how, if the lefties truly believe that humans are a parasite on Gaia that should be “cured”, do they justify being against guns and other weapons that in their minds are verefficient tools for doing jut that? This statement may be rhetorical.
They aren’t against guns per se, but against private ownership of them. The “authorities” can still have them, to enforce their will against those who would protest their dictates.
“The left is willing to sacrifice millions of human lives to “protect Mother Earth.””
Just not their own.
I think “Our constitution gives us the right to bear arms” works fine for the low information voter as well as those that worship at the alter of government. The low information voter can figure out the whole truth once they become engaged and aware.
I think that in the heat of speaking (or even writing) extemporaneously this “Constitution gives us…” comment is a common and forgivable error. It does not mean that we should not point it out as we constantly pointed out to GW that it is “new-klee-er” not “new-kew-ler”. So long as we can ascertain that he KNOWS the difference and believes in the natural right to keep and bear arms an occasional correction of this point should be sufficient until it becomes reflexive, like practicing your draw and sight acquisition.
Is it important to argue semantics, or should we support a Democrat who believes that the Constitution does not give the right to self defense? We understand that the Constitution *recognizes* unalienable rights. Statists do not. To them, rights are negotiable based upon the perception of safety, the court of public opinion and their desire to control a populace.
Indeed. I have heard “rights are a social construct” often enough to be thoroughly sick of it.
Either they’re a social construct or they’re meaningless, because a ‘right’ that you can’t always exercise is no right at all.
Sorry, Hannibal, I must disagree. A NATURAL right remains a right forever (or as long as you live) whether or not you have the ability to exercise it.
I have a natural right to breathe several dozen times per minute, 24/7. Anyone who attempts to deny me that right, even if they are only partially successful, is a criminal and I then have my natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to do whatever I can to make them stop so that I can resume breathing normally, up to and including putting a .357 round through their left eye if I am able. On the other hand, if I am in the water and drowning due to nobody’s fault but my own I still have the natural right to breath, and I will try everything I can to exercise that right, up to and including breathing in water and dying. The inability to exercise a right is NOT the same as not having the right.
If this were not true in the case of the right to self defense then why is their the legal recognition of “Justifiable Homicide”? Isn’t this a legal admission of our natural right to defend our own survival?
“It’s a God given right!”
“Says who?”
“Well… I say it’s a God given right, and even if many biblical scholars disagree with me, it’s self-evident!”
I prefer to treat the Constitution as the guiding principle… it could be written a bit more clearly, but it’s better than any holy book or philosophical discussion I’ve ever read.
I don’t see it as being written with a lack of clarity at all. It is that people keep trying to introduce things not actually written into it that makes it seem confusing.
Then we have judges deciding constitutionality (when that power was not given to them) to add to the confusion, especially when the judges decide that the literal words written down don’t mean what the words say, they mean what the judges decide they should mean. You have to wonder, if the literal words of the supreme law are not to be taken at face value, why should the words of a bunch of appointed jurists?
Yup, the Constitution is quite clear. Thats why its takes a Constitutional lawyer some 6 odd years to come up with the convoluted and obtuse arguments required to muddle words until it means what they want it to mean.
It is written with a lack of clarity for those who choose not to understand those types of things.
Yeah, I had problem with that too. It is indicative of a lack of sincerity and conviction to the subject – lip service.
And on a completely unrelated and largely relevant note – I can’t stand to look at his Micheal Jackson nose.
“In the fundraising appeal, Dewhurst sneered: “Hey, Obama: Come and take it!””
Did they really just use the word “sneered” in a “news” report?
Nice to see our media continuing their tradition of fair, unbiased reporting.
He sneered in an extremist, racist manner of course.
While “touting” his guns in a bar …
My wiener dog sneers, and she’s not racist. She knows all races, creeds, and sexual orientations accidentally drop food equally.
Hopefully El Paso gets rid of Joe Pickett – D. Bastard killed the open carry bill by not allowing it to come to a vote. Then of course Perry didn’t make it part of the special sessions either. Texas seriously needs to clean house.
It has to be a great disappointment to the Democrats that their “we won’t take your hunting rifles” message has failed to convince gun owners of the Dems’ deep and abiding respect for the 2nd Amendment. (“…shall not be infringed? What’s that mean?”)
I know! Democrats should get the president, Barack Obama the Anointed, to stand up in front of the TV monitors, and reading carefully from the teleprompters, make the following promise: “If you like your current 2nd Amendment rights, you can keep them. Period.”
That should work – we all have a deep and abiding trust in the President.
In response to IdahoPete above, sorry missed hitting the reply button.
“If you like your current 2nd Amendment rights, you can keep them. Period.”
+1 Now that sounds like a tee shirt I’d wear!
This is not Tokyo, this is not Finland
If he was trying to make a point, he should have said “This is not New York. This is the United States of America.”
Correct. Or CA.
Might I point out that silencers are mandatory in Finland? And that they repelled the Soviet Union?
Not that they are anything like that today. I think the once-iron-headed Finns have been tamed by the cell phone.
I think it’s the fact that no one has tried to invade for a few decades. Too cold to stay worked up for long, like all the Nordic countries. Get shit done, then go back to avoiding eye contact like normal.
I just saw my very first CRYSTAL HOT SAUCE TV ad! During the Grambling/Southern football game – with Doug Williams’ son at QB!! It would be a good place for a Chrystal Hot Sauce ad.
Comments are closed.