Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Prestor Jon wrote:

A child that has not been taught any social or cultural beliefs will still get upset if you take something from him/her because he/she has an innate understanding that what he/she possesses is his/hers.

How do you know? Are you aware of an experiment which demonstrated such behavior under the conditions you've given?

Prestor Jon wrote:
Same with the right to self defense and to be secure in your person. Try changing a baby's diaper, they don't like it, they resist as you try to manipulate them and get them cleaned up and changed. That's because on an instinctive level humans naturally try to protect themselves from others trying to impose their will on them and control their bodies.

There is a massive difference between trying to protect oneself and believing that doing so is right. The right v. wrong dichotomy only comes into play through social interaction, as evidenced by the many different understandings of "rights" throughout human history.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:


The Founding Fathers had absolutely no trust whatsoever in majoritarian government (i.e. democracy of any kind). That's why they created a Constitutional Republic, and not a fething "democracy".

Oh great, this again. I really don't think you ought to lecture people on how the US works if your understanding is that the US is not a democracy, or that a constitutional republic can't be a democracy. You further just spent a long post essentially boils yelling "rights exist indepentendly of society!!" really loudly without backing it up with anything, in a thread where we're discussing whether that's the case.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:



I hope folks enjoy reading this little history lesson, short write-up on what our Founding ideals were, and outline of what our Founders intended. Because I sure as hell didn't enjoy typing out what should understood by Americans, even in this age of American Idol, ideological bickering, agendas, selfishness, and intellectual laziness. I didn't need some academic prick or Wikipedia to fill my head with nonsense, "interpretation", and theories. I've read the Constitution myself. I've read the Declaration of Independence myself. I've read the the writings of the Founding Fathers myself. I've read the Federalist Papers myself. And to be honest, it doesn't take a lawyer, a professor with a doctorate, a judge, or some nebulous "expert" to understand what was behind our system of government or Constitution.

Have a nice day.

Ah yes, the "no reasoning allowed" argument. I award you zero points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

 Peregrine wrote:


You seem to have a rather limited understanding of US history. A significant part of why we got the system that we did is various compromises related to slavery. It wasn't some noble and enlightened attempt to avoid the dangers of direct democracy, it was fear that the states with the largest population (IOW, southern states with lots of slaves) would have disproportionate influence. Quite a few of those founding fathers did want direct democracy, and the final result is a compromise between competing factions.

I have a very good understanding of American history, thank you very much. I didn't sleep in class.


There were issues concerning slavery. One was whether or not it should be abolished there and then. It was decided that it would be unwise economically for the new Republic to do so. Instead, they laid the groundwork for a gradual abolishment of slavery, starting with setting a date for American participation of the U.S. in the international slave trade to become illegal (the compromise date was set at January 1,1808) if the States didn't resolve the issue in 20 years, and the limiting of slavery in the western territories. Another issue was over population census and the number of seats in the House, and how it related to the slave population in the South (you are correct in that was an issue. The South enjoyed a powerful voting bloc in the first fifty years of the 19th Century). Thus, the so-called Three-fifths Compromise. However, the northern States began the process to eliminate the institution of slavery, and the southern States may have followed suit had the cotton gin not been invented and increased the demand of (and dependency on) slave labor. Of course, slavery was ultimately a divisive economic issue at the time (that could've torn the young Republic apart) that degraded into economic dependency on a deplorable institution in the South. While it was an issue that the Founders couldn't solve in their time, it is largely irrelevant when discussing the philosophies behind our system of government, inalienable rights, and how they relate to the Constitution.


During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the idea of a direct democracy was discussed. However, it was rejected. The tiny minority that supported the idea (like Franklin) based it more on their admiration of American Indian methods of governance. Most of the delegates either were what we would call today "federalists", or didn't trust democracy based on the Greek experiences in ancient times. You assertion that a significant number of the delegates supported democracy (direct or otherwise), enough to warrant a "compromise" on the matter, and that the Founding Fathers didn't recognize the dangers in majoritarianism, and didn't form the early Republic's system without taking it into consideration to avoid those dangers, is historically incorrect and patently false.

Ah yes, what a tragedy it is that we have "ripped asunder" the checks and balances of only allowing wealthy white men to vote. Truly we live in a broken world.

Nice try with the usual leftist comeback involving "rich white men". That doesn't float with me, Hoss.


The reason it was set up in such a matter is A: The distrust of democracy and B: Property owners (stakeholders in society, many of whom were productive and made money from their property) tend to vote in the interests of keeping government small and out of their business. The fact that the majority were well-off white guys at the time is irrelevant. It's the people who didn't have a stake that were thought to be the ones who would vote for big, encroaching government at the expense of individual liberty. The French Revolution proved the American Founders correct in that vein.

Is not a US legal document. It was a propaganda statement, and the government that immediately followed it doesn't even exist anymore. That failed government, by the way? It was a system with much less central power, and the authors of the constitution made a deliberate choice to change this in the next government.

horsegak. The Declaration of Independence is considered THE founding document of the American Republic, and was a representation of the ideals the United States was founded on. Whether or not it's a "legal" document in the modern sense doesn't even enter into it. Whether or not the Continental Congress that drafted and signed the document existed, after the modern Federal Government was established with Constitutional ratification, doesn't enter into it. What you fail to comprehend is that the ideals behind the Declaration, and the reasons we rebelled against Britain (Liberty and freedom in all areas of life), is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights.

No they weren't. Do you think that the third amendment exists as a purely theoretical exercise in the rights of private property? Of course not. It exists because it wasn't considered common sense that the state can't forcibly borrow your property to house its troops, and the colonial governments had done exactly that. That's why we have an explicit statement that it is not allowed under US law, because without one "common sense" was that it was something that governments did.

Incorrect. We're talking about inalienable rights here. The quartering of soldiers in homes and on property in peacetime (the inane example you mentioned) relates to the inalienable rights of the individual on their property, and the notion that a "man's home is his castle". The Third Amendment was amended for the very same reason that the Fourth Amendment was. So, it's very much related to the rights of private property. "Theoretical" doesn't even enter into it. Because IT IS. They (the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights) were considered "common sense" in the vein that it was taken for granted by some, that a free individual had those inalienable rights. And as I said before, the more realistic wanted a Bill of Rights as a safeguard because they feared (and rightly so) that those in power would use a lack of a document as an excuse to play fast and loose with those Liberties. And they were right.

They are perhaps clear and concise, but interpreting them literally is utter lunacy. Things like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, private ownership of nuclear weapons, etc, would be permitted under the strictest interpretation of the first and second amendments. Obviously this is not something we want to have in a functioning society. But don't take my word for it, ask Thomas Jefferson:

"A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means."

If they are CLEAR AND CONCISE, then they should be taken as written. I know that's difficult in this age gray of morality, manipulation of language, and loose ethics. But that is the way that it was meant to be when it comes to the Bill of Rights.

And spare me those classic ridiculous and nonsensical examples of "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" and owning atomics in your basement, and how they should be taken as a reason why we shouldn't follow the Bill of Rights as written. The first is a matter of respect for your fellow man and his well being, and good public order/civilized behavior, not about how the First Amendment should be exercised. And the deal about nukes is their nature and the fact that ordinary joes and janes couldn't handle such weapons, and the dangerous material that fuels them. Even in colonial times, artillery and large amounts of powder for said artillery were kept in town armories. It's evident that the Founding Fathers meant PERSONAL ARMS when it come to the Second Amendment. It's fething hysterical when asshats start throwing out crap about surface to air missiles, howitzers, fully operational main battle tanks, and nuclear warheads.


And by the way, you're taking Jefferson's quote out of context. He's referring to written (i.e. statutory) law, not the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights, and how slavish adherence to written law threatens the very Liberty and Bill of Rights we're talking about.

Don't you think this is being a bit dramatic about housing troops on civilian property? I mean, it may be good policy not to do it unless it's really necessary, but I'd hardly think that this is some inherent property of the universe we're talking about, existing independently of any legal system.

Don't be a smart alec. You're far from being comedian material. And you're overly fixated on the Third Amendment. See my earlier statement regarding this Amendment and the Fourth, and how they relate to inalienable rights. And considering that you're twisting the point I'm trying to make in a childish manner, I'm about through discussing this with you. Thank God that those "inalienable rights" that you seem to think doesn't exist allows you to be a smart ass without consequence, unlike those "utopias" that those of your political ilk love so much.

Thank god Jefferson's statements about the value of revolution are something we've left firmly in the past. One would hope that Jefferson, on seeing the modern world and the horrifying scale of modern warfare, would also reconsider this position.

Yeah. Tell that to the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto, the French Resistance in World War II, the White Russian Army, the Finns in 1939, the ex-pat forces that fought against Hitler at the Battle of Britain, the Eagle Corps, the Tutsi who fought back against their murderers, the Cuban freedom fighters we betrayed at the Bay of Pigs, the Nez Perce, etc,etc,etc, etc, and on and on.


Enjoy that little fantasy world you live in, with all the First World Problems there, Cap'n. The real world says otherwise.

They were, on the other hand, quite happy to allow slavery to exist. They were happy to limit voting rights to rich white men like themselves. This seems much less like a noble desire to protect inalienable rights than a selfish attempt to ensure that life continued to be good for their fellow rich white men.

It was a matter of practicality. And they laid the foundation for slavery to eventually be abolished. Unfortunately, it took a war, with over 600,000 dead, in the end to solve the problem because people on both sides of the aisle forced the issue.

As for the rest of that drivel you posted, I already addressed that earlier in this response. I won't dignify it with further attention, since it's obviously a waste of time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


Oh great, this again. I really don't think you ought to lecture people on how the US works if your understanding is that the US is not a democracy, or that a constitutional republic can't be a democracy. You further just spent a long post essentially boils yelling "rights exist indepentendly of society!!" really loudly without backing it up with anything, in a thread where we're discussing whether that's the case.

I can "lecture", as you so cleverly put it, because I understand how and why my own government was founded, and the philosophies behind that founding.


It's not a democracy because the Founding Fathers didn't establish our Constitutional Republic as such. Reading comprehension is your friend there, amigo.

Ah yes, the "no reasoning allowed" argument. I award you zero points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Melodrama is so unbecoming. I didn't say anything against other's reasoning, and I gave my reasons why the Bill of Rights is tied to the "inalienable rights" mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.


But by all means, get all bent out of shape for nothing. It's your blood pressure.


Anyway, enjoy the rest of the thread. This is starting to get heated. And getting heated causes problems with the mods. I've stated my position, and have no intention of fighting with either of you on the matter. So, I'm out. Peace.

There are no universal, fundamental rights. There are rights that societies decide should be granted, protected and enforced. These can be infringed institutionally or by individuals, they can be changed or removed.

 jmurph wrote:
CplJake: I don't think you are getting what a social construct is. Rights do not exist in the wild. They are a creation of understanding of human governance and individual demands. They are not inherent to human existence. The ancient Egyptians didn't talk about rights, yet had a tremendous, prosperous empire. Food and death are real things; rights are an idea that we have a society have decided has value. People wanting limited water has nothing to do with "rights"- it is basic animal survival.

And all the basic rights involve that animal survival. The right to defend oneself, the right to own property all boil down in the base case to survival.

I think I do get it. As I said, the 'social construct' comes in when folks realized by working with others (even if it put some limits on what they recognized as their individual rights) they could help ensure other rights were protected. Again, I've been places that social construct has broken down. Folks still feel they have rights, they just must be willing and capable of protecting them.

 dogma wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

A child that has not been taught any social or cultural beliefs will still get upset if you take something from him/her because he/she has an innate understanding that what he/she possesses is his/hers.

How do you know? Are you aware of an experiment which demonstrated such behavior under the conditions you've given?

Prestor Jon wrote:
Same with the right to self defense and to be secure in your person. Try changing a baby's diaper, they don't like it, they resist as you try to manipulate them and get them cleaned up and changed. That's because on an instinctive level humans naturally try to protect themselves from others trying to impose their will on them and control their bodies.

There is a massive difference between trying to protect oneself and believing that doing so is right. The right v. wrong dichotomy only comes into play through social interaction, as evidenced by the many different understandings of "rights" throughout human history.

Children at an age too young to understand any social conventions still understand possession. If you want to see proof just ask anyone who's raised kids or a preK or Kindergarten teacher or try it on a child you know.

If you want studies there are several studies on chimpanzee and bonobo behavior that show evidence of those primates understanding property rights and self defense rights.

Part of why we instinctively protect ourselves is because we instinctively know that it's wrong for somebody to take a life. You could be in a place with a completely different society and moral values but if you see somebody being hurt or murdered you'll want to do something to help even when you're ignorant of the reasoning behind the actions.

We have a natural aversion to murder. That why you have to create elaborate social structures and behavior modifying belief systems to reprogram people into accepting things like religious honor killings or human sacrifice. Society is what creates acceptance of murder because people wouldn't tolerate it otherwise. That's why societies form in the first place, to protect the many from the abnormal few who do aberrant things like murder.

I was going to comment on this topic but I see it is a small group of people going back and forward with moot opnions on each other. In all countries rights of people are a thing in the wild the rights of all creatures are placed by the majourity, just like human rights.

The is no arguements to be made here folks the majourity always rules. People have chosen what rights humans are born with depending on their culture. If the majourity of people agree to it, it becomes a right if not it wont.

This seems to be just a fight breaking out now lol.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
While it was an issue that the Founders couldn't solve in their time, it is largely irrelevant when discussing the philosophies behind our system of government, inalienable rights, and how they relate to the Constitution.

No, it's an entirely relevant issue, for two reasons:

1) It makes a joke of all that stuff about "inalienable rights". The people who wrote the constitution were content to allow slavery because it was inconvenient to end it. That rather clearly demonstrates a lack of commitment to the principle of inalienable rights, unless you want to concede that the founders believed that inalienable rights were something that only white people have.

2) It provides an alternative (and correct) explanation for how we got our system of government. You can't just ignore the compromises that were made involving slavery and declare that the whole thing was a noble effort to avoid the problems of direct democracy.

You assertion that a significant number of the delegates supported democracy (direct or otherwise), enough to warrant a "compromise" on the matter, and that the Founding Fathers didn't recognize the dangers in majoritarianism, and didn't form the early Republic's system without taking it into consideration to avoid those dangers, is historically incorrect and patently false.

Then why is half of our legislative branch elected by direct democracy? If nobody wanted direct democracy then who put it into the constitution? Was this a copy/paste error from some other government document that slipped in entirely by accident?

Nice try with the usual leftist comeback involving "rich white men". That doesn't float with me, Hoss.

Ah, denial. Too bad it's still true, no matter how much you talk about "the usual leftist comeback". It's indisputable truth that only wealthy white men were allowed to vote, and you even argued openly that restricting voting rights was part of the system of checks and balances.

The reason it was set up in such a matter is A: The distrust of democracy and B: Property owners (stakeholders in society, many of whom were productive and made money from their property) tend to vote in the interests of keeping government small and out of their business. The fact that the majority were well-off white guys at the time is irrelevant. It's the people who didn't have a stake that were thought to be the ones who would vote for big, encroaching government at the expense of individual liberty. The French Revolution proved the American Founders correct in that vein.

Ah yes, the classic "we had to destroy the village in order to save it" argument. Clearly the best way to protect individual liberty is to only grant it to people who will use it correctly and support small-government principles. It's just way too dangerous to give individual liberty to people who don't agree with us!

The Declaration of Independence is considered THE founding document of the American Republic, and was a representation of the ideals the United States was founded on.

Or at least an exaggerated propaganda version of those ideals. It's funny how, when it was time to write the actual legal documents that the country would be governed by, they didn't include it.

The quartering of soldiers in homes and on property in peacetime (the inane example you mentioned) relates to the inalienable rights of the individual on their property, and the notion that a "man's home is his castle".

That's nice. Have you heard of eminent domain? You know, the thing where the government takes your property for the greater good of society? If, for example, your house is in the middle of the intended route of a road the government can take your property and pay you whatever compensation they believe is appropriate. This is clearly a much greater violation of any supposed private property rights than temporarily borrowing your property, and yet somehow the authors of the constitution failed to mention it.

They (the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights) were considered "common sense" in the vein that it was taken for granted by some, that a free individual had those inalienable rights.

If it was such "common sense" then why did the British government force private citizens to house soldiers? You might argue that the authors of the constitution were the rare voice of progress here, but that's not the same as common sense.

The first is a matter of respect for your fellow man and his well being, and good public order/civilized behavior, not about how the First Amendment should be exercised.

No, it's clearly a question of how the first amendment should be applied because it is ILLEGAL to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, not merely considered bad behavior, and citing the first amendment will not get you out of your punishment. Same thing with libel, obscenity, etc. There are clearly limits on what the first amendment protects that are not contained in the text of the amendment, and many of those limits are pretty clearly things that are in the best interest of society to have.

It's evident that the Founding Fathers meant PERSONAL ARMS when it come to the Second Amendment.

Oh really? Because I don't see anything about that in the text of the second amendment. And if the intent is so "clear" and "precise" and has "no room for 'interpretation'" we should be able to know the intent of the amendment simply by reading it. We shouldn't have to resort to speculation about what the authors intended, reading outside sources, etc. It sure sounds like things aren't as clear as you think they are.

And you're overly fixated on the Third Amendment.

Well that's certainly a convenient way of dismissing all the awkward problems the third amendment presents for your theories.

It was a matter of practicality. And they laid the foundation for slavery to eventually be abolished. Unfortunately, it took a war, with over 600,000 dead, in the end to solve the problem because people on both sides of the aisle forced the issue.

Ah yes, practicality. It's nice that you finally admit that the authors of the constitution were pragmatists who were willing to sacrifice whatever rights were necessary to get the job done, not virtuous paragons of the idea of inalienable rights who would refuse any suggestion that they compromise their morality. The next step is to move away from the concept of inalienable rights entirely, since even the people and documents you're holding up as their greatest defenders don't actually believe in the idea.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Children at an age too young to understand any social conventions still understand possession. If you want to see proof just ask anyone who's raised kids or a preK or Kindergarten teacher or try it on a child you know.

By the time a child has reached PK/KG they have probably been socialized. I'm not sure why you are assuming that socialization implies necessity; that comes well after identity formation.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Part of why we instinctively protect ourselves is because we instinctively know that it's wrong for somebody to take a life.

Assuming that said life is considered to be a "life".

Prestor Jon wrote:
That's why societies form in the first place, to protect the many from the abnormal few who do aberrant things like murder.

Are you likening consensual sex to murder?

Prestor Jon wrote:
We have a natural aversion to murder. That why you have to create elaborate social structures and behavior modifying belief systems to reprogram people into accepting things like religious honor killings or human sacrifice. Society is what creates acceptance of murder because people wouldn't tolerate it otherwise. That's why societies form in the first place, to protect the many from the abnormal few who do aberrant things like murder.

"We", as humans, certainly do not have a natural aversion to murder. We are capable of a a large spectrum of reactions to violence. It seems to me that we could find many examples where family was a more than sufficient catalyst for acceptable violent behaviour, therefore putting in doubt the idea that socialisation and institutionalisation is necessary for the emergence of such a context.

"We", however, have linguistics. We have pleading. We have bargaining. We decided to create words and syntagms and systems of interpretation.
"We", brutish ugly beasts as we are, have nothing as noble as "Natural Rights". We have words, and we take them seriously.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Children at an age too young to understand any social conventions still understand possession. If you want to see proof just ask anyone who's raised kids or a preK or Kindergarten teacher or try it on a child you know.

If you want studies there are several studies on chimpanzee and bonobo behavior that show evidence of those primates understanding property rights and self defense rights.

Part of why we instinctively protect ourselves is because we instinctively know that it's wrong for somebody to take a life. You could be in a place with a completely different society and moral values but if you see somebody being hurt or murdered you'll want to do something to help even when you're ignorant of the reasoning behind the actions.

We have a natural aversion to murder. That why you have to create elaborate social structures and behavior modifying belief systems to reprogram people into accepting things like religious honor killings or human sacrifice. Society is what creates acceptance of murder because people wouldn't tolerate it otherwise. That's why societies form in the first place, to protect the many from the abnormal few who do aberrant things like murder.

So if bonobos and chimpanzees show evidence of understanding property and self defense, do they also have natural rights? If not, why not?

Animals murder for "personal gain".

Lions kill young that isn't their offspring.

Tom cats kill young.

Chimpanzees.

Ants go to war.

There are all sorts of examples of animals that "murder" other animals of their own species.

We as humans have just put a name to it and attached social constructs to it.

Interesting to read a jurist named St. George Tucker published the first extended analysis and commentary on the US Constitution in 1803.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/tucker-view-of-the-constitution-of-the-united-states-with-selected-writings

Key takeaway regarding 2nd amendment:

"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature."
"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty"

I had to lookup the definition of palladium:

So the recent SCOTUS individual rights interpretation of the 2nd Amendment supports what was widely held during the founding era.

Lot's of good stuff in this book.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
And we know what Jefferson said about the Tree of Liberty.....

He also said taking Canada "will be a mere matter of marching", then we kicked his ass all the way home and burned his stupid house

This debate seems to show that ultra-nationalism and philosophy do not mix well.

 whembly wrote:
Interesting to read a jurist named St. George Tucker published the first extended analysis and commentary on the US Constitution in 1803.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/tucker-view-of-the-constitution-of-the-united-states-with-selected-writings

Key takeaway regarding 2nd amendment:

"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature."
"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty"

I had to lookup the definition of palladium:

Spoiler:

Palladium
[puh-ley-dee-uh m]

noun, plural Palladia [puh-ley-dee-uh] (Show IPA)
1.
Also, Palladion [puh-ley-dee-on] (Show IPA). a statue of Athena, especially one on the citadel of Troy on which the safety of the city was supposed to depend.
2.
(usually lowercase) anything believed to provide protection or safety; safeguard.

So the recent SCOTUS individual rights interpretation of the 2nd Amendment supports what was widely held during the founding era.

Lot's of good stuff in this book.

Of course this ignores the fact that the 2nd Amendment does not read "The right to self protection, being fundamental to the protection of liberty...." but begins with talk of maintaining a militia and protecting a free state, with no mention of individual protection. Notice they also didn't say "Country" (compare with Article 1 Section 8 regarding national militia). Madison's first draft read "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person." Notice none of this is in any way talking about self defense or any personal liberty? Madison was surprised to learn that his proposed language did not quell fears that the federal government might subsume state militias. The language was subsequently changed to make it clear that states had a right to have an armed militia, even if the feds would not raise one.

The Second Amendment was intended as a federal limitation on States, not a limitation on State power to limit firearm ownership by individuals. There were certainly anti-federalist who wanted a guarantee of a right to firearm ownership for personal self defense or hunting (also a right to fishing), but Madison ignored these and did not include such protections.

Historically, it turned out to be a pretty good idea as state militia were crucial in the War of 1812 and in 1861 it was a Massachusetts militia, not a federal force, that was the first to reach Washington DC to protect the city.

However, the Supreme Court has found an individual right to gun ownership somehow, so here we are. Which just underscores how artificial rights really are.

 jmurph wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Interesting to read a jurist named St. George Tucker published the first extended analysis and commentary on the US Constitution in 1803.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/tucker-view-of-the-constitution-of-the-united-states-with-selected-writings

Key takeaway regarding 2nd amendment:

"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature."
"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty"

I had to lookup the definition of palladium:

Spoiler:

Palladium
[puh-ley-dee-uh m]

noun, plural Palladia [puh-ley-dee-uh] (Show IPA)
1.
Also, Palladion [puh-ley-dee-on] (Show IPA). a statue of Athena, especially one on the citadel of Troy on which the safety of the city was supposed to depend.
2.
(usually lowercase) anything believed to provide protection or safety; safeguard.

So the recent SCOTUS individual rights interpretation of the 2nd Amendment supports what was widely held during the founding era.

Lot's of good stuff in this book.

Of course this ignores the fact that the 2nd Amendment does not read "The right to self protection, being fundamental to the protection of liberty...." but begins with talk of maintaining a militia and protecting a free state, with no mention of individual protection. Notice they also didn't say "Country" (compare with Article 1 Section 8 regarding national militia). Madison's first draft read "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person." Notice none of this is in any way talking about self defense or any personal liberty? Madison was surprised to learn that his proposed language did not quell fears that the federal government might subsume state militias. The language was subsequently changed to make it clear that states had a right to have an armed militia, even if the feds would not raise one.

The Second Amendment was intended as a federal limitation on States, not a limitation on State power to limit firearm ownership by individuals. There were certainly anti-federalist who wanted a guarantee of a right to firearm ownership for personal self defense or hunting (also a right to fishing), but Madison ignored these and did not include such protections.

Historically, it turned out to be a pretty good idea as state militia were crucial in the War of 1812 and in 1861 it was a Massachusetts militia, not a federal force, that was the first to reach Washington DC to protect the city.

However, the Supreme Court has found an individual right to gun ownership somehow, so here we are. Which just underscores how artificial rights really are.

Sure... rights "are functionally" artificials. Why do you think the myriads of framers went out of their way with the 2nd Amendment? Consider this position:

That's a context you'd have to take an account.

Furthermore, a "Letter of Marque" legally lets you become a state-sanctioned pirate. (mercenaries at sea) That further supports the idea that "rights" are artificial.

So, *because* rights are viewed as artificial... isn't that a case you'd want something like our Bill of Rights? Being an armed citizenry keeps the government a bit more honest... right?

 whembly wrote:
Being an armed citizenry keeps the government a bit more honest... right?

Maybe 200 years ago it did, but not anymore. There is no realistic hope of individual citizens successfully defeating the government, no matter how many AR-15s they own. And allowing unrestricted private of tanks/aircraft/etc on the level that would be required to fight a successful war would be utter insanity. A "militia" member has a much higher chance of killing themselves and some random bystanders by crashing their F-16 than of successfully using that plane in a fight against the government.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Being an armed citizenry keeps the government a bit more honest... right?

Maybe 200 years ago it did, but not anymore. There is no realistic hope of individual citizens successfully defeating the government, no matter how many AR-15s they own. And allowing unrestricted private of tanks/aircraft/etc on the level that would be required to fight a successful war would be utter insanity. A "militia" member has a much higher chance of killing themselves and some random bystanders by crashing their F-16 than of successfully using that plane in a fight against the government.

problem is if the Government had the US military attack American Citizens how do you think that would go over? especially in todays society?

Asterios wrote:
problem is if the Government had the US military attack American Citizens how do you think that would go over? especially in todays society?

Probably very well, because it's going to happen in one of two scenarios:

1) The government is not evil and oppressive enough to justify violent revolution, and most of the country cheers as a handful of murderous thugs are dealt with.

or

2) The government is evil and oppressive enough to justify violent revolution, and most of the country cheers as the hated minority is killed.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
problem is if the Government had the US military attack American Citizens how do you think that would go over? especially in todays society?

Probably very well, because it's going to happen in one of two scenarios:

1) The government is not evil and oppressive enough to justify violent revolution, and most of the country cheers as a handful of murderous thugs are dealt with.

or

2) The government is evil and oppressive enough to justify violent revolution, and most of the country cheers as the hated minority is killed.

the issue is, if the military was mad up of only Robots I could see the Government turning them on American Citizens, but the army is not yet made up of Robots (yet) and as long as humans wield the weapons and such I do not see them in clear conscious turning on American Citizens

Don't turn this into the usual "military could be used by the government/military will rise up against it" argument. That's not what this thread is, so let's leave that discussion alone, thanks.

Ok, dropping the hypothetical "who would shoot at who" and getting back to how this applies to the concept of how we think of rights:

[MOD EDIT - SEE WARNING ABOVE - Alpharius]

Late to the party. But a child learns possession. It's not innate. Not according to developmental psychology.

They don't even understand object permanence at first. So when you hide their toy, for quite a few months, it has simply stopped existing.

So pretty much everything expect autonomic bodily functions is learned, either self-taught through experimentation or socially absorbed.