13 votes

Definition of "bear arms" under Second Amendment

There is so much arguing over what the right to bear arms means.

First, people need to STOP saying second amendment right, or constitutional right, because it implies that the constitution and its amendments gave you rights. It did NOT! It protects them. You have natural rights and they cannot be taken away. government is instituted to protect them. The sole purpose of government.

Now to the bear arms. What is the limitation? To me it is clear. The limitation is ANY weapon that when used as a self defense against a person or persons presents a clear and present danger to innocent people. So a nuclear bomb is obviously not covered.

So the weapon will depend on where you are. You can't use 40 hand grenades to defend yourself in a fight in a movie theater, but you could if you saw 4 thugs running towards your house.

The tool is not the issue. It is the effect of what it does and if the ramifications are that you kill 10 innocent people trying to defend against one person, such weapon should not be used.

If a thug has a tank, you can have a tank. In fact Arnold Schwarzenegger owns a tank and no one says a thing.

What are your thoughts.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

This Was Debated in the Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788

Here is a free .pdf It is the second of the 4 Founders suggested reading documents. http://www.pacificwestcom.com/oregonpatriotparty/American_Pa...

Patrick Henry and George Mason argue for the inclusion of the "Bill of Rights." George Nicolas presents that they are a "PREEXISTING CLAIM OF RIGHTS IN THE PEOPLE" and "BELONG TO US WHETHER THEY ARE WRITTEN IN THE CONSTITUTION OR NOT; Patrick Henry explains it is better to have "NO DISPUTE" with regard to these Rights. (also a good debate on arms and MILITIA)

Patrick Henry (Humorously) asks why the Bill of Rights are not being included, .... "Because it will Use too Much Paper?" (gotta love this guy)

BELOW (KEEP READING!) I Have Placed the End of that Day Debate Right HERE:

Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:
In Full: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/americanpatriotpartynewsletter

"Patrick Henry: "...What says our BILL OF RIGHTS? "that excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Are you not, therefore, now calling on those gentlemen who are to compose Congress, to prescribe trials and define punishments without this control? Will they find sentiments there similar to this bill of rights?

You let them loose; you do more you depart from the genius of your country.

That paper tells you that the trial of crimes shall be by jury, and held in the state where the crime shall have been committed. Under this extensive provision, they may proceed in a manner extremely dangerous to liberty: a person accused may be carried from one extremity of the state to another, and be tried, not by an impartial jury of the vicinage, acquainted with his character and the circumstances of the fact, but by a jury unacquainted with both, and who may be biased against him. Is not this sufficient to alarm men? How different is this from the immemorial practice of your British ancestors, and your own! I need not tell you that, by the common law, a number of hundreds were required on a jury, and that afterwards it was sufficient if the jurors came from the same county. With less than this the people of England have never been satisfied. That paper ought to have declared the common law in force.

In this business of legislation, your members of Congress will loose the restriction of not imposing excessive fines, demanding excessive bail, and inflicting cruel and unusual punishments. These are prohibited by your declaration of rights. What has distinguished our ancestors? That they would not admit of tortures, or cruel and barbarous punishment. But Congress may introduce the practice of the CIVIL law, in preference to that of the COMMON law. They may {448} introduce the practice of France, Spain, and Germany of torturing, to extort a confession of the crime. They will say that they might as well draw examples from those countries as from Great Britain, and they will tell you that there is such a necessity of strengthening the arm of government, that they must have a criminal equity, and extort confession by torture, in order to punish with still more relentless severity.

We are then lost and undone.

And can any man think it troublesome, when we can, by a small interference, prevent our rights from being lost? If you will, like the Virginian government, give them knowledge of the extent of the rights retained by the people, and the powers of themselves, they will, if they be honest men, thank you for it. Will they not wish to go on sure grounds?

But if you leave them otherwise, they will not know how to proceed; and, being in a state of uncertainty, they will "assume" rather than give up powers by "implication".

A bill of rights may be summed up in a few words.

What do they tell us?

That our rights are reserved.

Why not say so?

Is it because it will consume too much paper?

Gentlemen's reasoning against a "bill of rights" does not satisfy me. Without saying which has the right side, it remains doubtful. A bill of rights is a favorite thing with the Virginians and the people of the other states likewise. It may be their prejudice, but the government ought to suit their geniuses; otherwise, its operation will be unhappy. A bill of rights, even if its necessity be doubtful, will exclude the possibility of dispute; and, with great submission, I think the BEST way is to "have NO dispute". In the present Constitution, they are restrained from issuing general warrants to search suspected places, or seize persons not named, without evidence of the commission of a fact, &c. There was certainly some celestial influence governing those who deliberated on that Constitution; for they have, with the most cautious and enlightened circumspection, guarded those indefeasible rights which ought ever to be held sacred!

The officers of Congress may come upon you now, fortified with all the terrors of "paramount federal authority". Excisemen may come in multitudes; for the limitation of their numbers no man knows.

They may, unless the general government be restrained by a bill of rights, or some similar restriction, go into your cellars and rooms, and search, ransack, and {449} measure, every thing you eat, drink, and wear.

They ought to be restrained Within proper bounds.

With respect to the freedom of the press, I need say nothing; for it is hoped that the gentlemen who shall compose Congress will take care to infringe as "little as possible" the rights of human nature. This will result from their ""integrity".

They should, from prudence, abstain from violating the rights of their constituents. They are not, however, "expressly" restrained. But whether they will intermeddle with that palladium of our liberties or not, I leave you to determine.

Mr. GRAYSON thought it questionable whether rights not given up were reserved. A majority of the states, he observed, had expressly reserved certain important rights by bills of rights, and that in the Confederation there was a clause declaring expressly that every power and right not given up was retained by the states. It was the general sense of America that such a clause was necessary; other, wise, why did they introduce a clause which was totally unnecessary?

It had been insisted, he said, in many parts of America, that a bill of rights was only necessary between a prince and people, and not in such a government as this, which was a compact between the people themselves. This did not satisfy his mind; for so extensive was the power of legislation, in his estimation, that he doubted whether, when it was once given up, any thing was retained. He further remarked, that there were some negative clauses in the Constitution, which refuted the doctrine contended for by the other side. For instance; the 2d clause of the 9th section of the 1st article provided that "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." And, by the last clause of the same section, "no title of nobility shall be granted by the United States."

Now, if these restrictions had not been here inserted, he asked whether Congress would not most clearly have had a right to suspend that great and valuable right, and to grant titles of nobility. When, in addition to these considerations, he saw they had an indefinite power to provide for the general welfare, he thought there were great reasons to apprehend great dangers.

He thought, therefore, that there ought to be a bill of rights."

Mr. GEORGE NICHOLAS, in answer to the two gentlemen {450} last up, observed that, though there was a declaration of rights in the government of Virginia, it was no conclusive reason that there should be one in this Constitution; for, if it was unnecessary in the former, its omission in the latter could be no defect. They ought, therefore, to prove that it was essentially necessary to be inserted in the Constitution of Virginia. There were five or six states in the Union which had no bill of rights, separately and distinctly as such; but they annexed the substance of a bill of rights to their respective constitutions. These states, he further observed, were as free as this state, and their liberties as secure as ours. If so, gentlemen's arguments from the precedent were not good. In Virginia, all powers were given to the government without any exception. It was different in the general government, to which certain special powers were delegated for certain purposes. He asked which was the more safe. Was it safer to grant general powers than certain limited powers? This much as to the theory, continued he. What is the practice of this invaluable government? Have your citizens been bound by it? They have not, sir. You have violated that maxim, "that no man shall be condemned without a fair trial." That man who was killed, not secundum artem, was deprived of his life without the benefit of law, and in express violation of this declaration of rights, which they confide in so much. But, sir, this bill of rights was no security. It is but a paper check. It has been violated in many other instances. Therefore, from theory and practice, it may be concluded that this government, with special powers, without any express exceptions, is better than a government with general powers and special exceptions. But the practice of England is against us. The rights there reserved to the people are to limit and check the king's prerogative. It is easier to enumerate the exceptions to his prerogative, than to mention all the cases to which it extends. Besides, these reservations, being only formed in acts of the legislature, may be altered by the representatives of the people when they think proper. No comparison can be made of this with the other governments he mentioned. There is no stipulation between the king and people. The former is possessed of absolute, unlimited authority.

But, sir, this Constitution is defective because the common {451} law is not declared to be in force! What would have been the consequence if it had? It would be immutable. But now it can be changed or modified as the legislative body may find necessary for the community.

But the "COMMON LAW" is "NOT EXCLUDED". There is "NOTHING" in "that paper" (APP Note: referring to the US Constitution being considered) to warrant the assertion.

As to the exclusion of a jury from the vicinage, he has mistaken the fact. The legislature may direct a jury to come from the vicinage. But the gentleman says that, by this Constitution, they have power to make laws to define crimes and prescribe punishments; and that, consequently, we are not free from torture. Treason against the United States is defined in the Constitution, and the forfeiture limited to the life of the person attainted.

Congress have power to define and punish:

a.) piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and
b.) offenses against the laws of nations;

but they (APP: the federal government, legislature or supreme court) CANNOT DEFINE or PRESCRIBE the PUNISHMENT of "ANY OTHER CRIME WHATEVER", WITHOUT "VIOLATING the CONSTITUTION"."

(APP Note: See this also in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions - Kentucky Resolutions #2 - This can be no clearer, the federal government and all those officials and citizens who support or allow others to be prosecuted under any "other crimes and punishments" not listed are in DIRECT VIOLATION to the Constitution they claim to uphold.)

"...If we had no security against torture but our declaration of rights, we might be tortured to-morrow; for it has been repeatedly infringed and disregarded. A bill of rights is only an acknowledgment of the PREEXISTING CLAIM TO RIGHTS IN THE PEOPLE.

They BELONG TO US AS MUCH as if they had been inserted in the Constitution. (APP Note: Which they eventually were) But it is said that, if it be doubtful, the possibility of dispute ought to be precluded. Admitting it was proper for the Convention to have inserted a bill of rights, it is not proper here to propose it as the condition of our accession to the Union. Would you reject this government for its omission, dissolve the Union, and bring miseries on yourselves and posterity? I hope the gentleman does not oppose it on this ground solely. Is there another reason? He said that it is not only the general wish of this state, but all the states, to have a bill of rights. If it be so, where is the difficulty of having this done by way of subsequent amendment? We shall find the other states willing to accord with their own favorite wish.

The gentleman last up says that the power of legislation includes every thing. A general power of legislation does. But this is a special power of legislation. Therefore, it does NOT contain that plenitude of power which he imagines. They "CANNOT LEGISLATE" in "ANY case" but those "PARTICULARLY ENUMERATED". No gentleman, who is a friend to the government, ought to withhold his assent from it for this reason.

{452} Mr. GEORGE MASON replied that the worthy gentleman was mistaken in his assertion that the bill of rights did not prohibit torture; for that one clause expressly provided that no man can give evidence against himself; and that the worthy gentleman must know that, in those countries where torture is used, evidence was extorted from the criminal himself. Another clause of the bill of rights provided that no cruel and unusual punishments shall be inflicted; therefore, torture was included in the prohibition.

Mr. NICHOLAS acknowledged the bill of rights to contain that prohibition, and that the gentleman was right with respect to the practice of extorting confession from the criminal in those countries where torture is used; but still he saw no security arising from the "bill of rights" as separate from the Constitution, for that it had been "frequently violated with impunity". "

(Which is why we should not allow the Rights to be treated in this way and protect them)

------

A summary: Now alot of of people think that the anti federalists were absolutely against the Constitution, but what was actually the issue, since both sides actually understood the principles, is that the federalists such as James Madison, "at the time", were wearing "rose colored glasses"; They could not "comprehend" bad people finding their way up the ladder into the federal government.

What happened, is that states and federal government began giving "EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES" in the form of Corporations, Unions, Tax Supported Special Interests, Zoning - which gives one persons property an privilege over another for different uses and they began supporting them with a UNENUMERATED FLAT PERCENTAGE TAX ON INCOME - Which is Unconstitutional as it is an "ARROGATED POWER" which is expressly prohibited (See this in this same debate)

It wasn't that the Constitution would not work, it was that the people elected to the federal government would eventually "ACT IN THEIR OWN INTERESTS" (which they have); and have the "SWORD and the PURSE"(as Patrick Henry describes it) of the nation in their hand.

Patrick Henry and George Mason bring this out in the debate; And sadly, every warning and danger these two presented in this 1 day convention HAVE CAME TRUE TODAY....

American Patriot Party.CC - Get Educated - Educate Others
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/American-Patriot-Party-CC-Nati...

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

It is no effing business WHAT you own as long as you...

obtained it legally.

Missing Russian "suitcase nukes," according to Wikipedia.

"The highest-ranking GRU defector Stanislav Lunev claimed that such Russian-made devices do exist and described them in more detail.[6] These devices, "identified as RA-115s (or RA-115-01s for submersible weapons)" weigh from fifty to sixty pounds. They can last for many years if wired to an electric source. In case there is a loss of power, there is a battery backup. If the battery runs low, the weapon has a transmitter that sends a coded message—either by satellite or directly to a GRU post at a Russian embassy or consulate.” According to Lunev, the number of "missing" nuclear devices (as found by General Lebed) "is almost identical to the number of strategic targets upon which those bombs would be used."

Yet, NONE of them have been used, at least as far as we know.

"Davy Crocket" nuclear warhead for projectile launched by recoiless rifle, again, according to Wikipedia.

"The Mk-54 weighed about 51 lb (23 kg), with a yield equivalent to somewhere between 10 or 20 tons of TNT— very close to the minimum practical size and yield for a fission warhead."

Again, none ever "fired in anger" and the army likely has thousands.
Knowing the Army, I am pretty sure they cannot account for all of them.

You can build a "fuel-air bomb" from charcoal, flour or any flammable liquid that produces a fine mist, that would weigh much less and achieve equal results, as long as you know what you are doing.

If you saw the movie, "Backdraft," you can clearly see what an arsonist is capable of doing, if he has the proper motivation.

So, the old "bazooka" argument does not hold water. The last time I heard that one, it came from Senator "Chucky" Schumer, who laughed all though the Waco investigations. For "Chucky," I would suggest nothing more than a "good skinning knife," but I have not yet heard anyone suggest we ban them.

I agree with you!

The phrase "bear arms" is ambiguous for a reason, "shall not be infringed" is not for an even more important reason!

it couldn't be more clear

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RablPaIREkk

;)

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

People need to realize that

People need to realize that even if the second amendment wasn't their, there are still two ways the right to own a gun is protected.

the 9th amendment

and the federal government needs an enumerated power to take guns, which it does not

The bill of rights is really meaningless and would have probably been better to be without, because it makes people think the bill of rights are the only rights protected.

Personally I am against

Personally I am against having bill of rights. It infers that if it isn't there you don't have the right.

They should just have incorporated the Declaration in it.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

In my view, in a perfect world.

To be armed as an individual means any weapon that an individual can use. Yes, that means RPGs and No that doesn't mean nukes or tanks. Crew served weapons or weapon systems belong in an organized militia, which could conceivably be a group of neighbors that choose to organize depending on how the particular state laws apply, but in no way can a state deny the right to assemble for common defense.

I see over lapping rights, the right of self defense and property rights...

For example, in the perfect world that I see an individual could own a tank but could not say that it is for personal defense because realistically how could you be the gunner and the driver at the same time. The owner of the tank should be part of a militia, but should also not be forced to join simply because he owns a tank (property rights)

Why not a tank? What is your

Why not a tank? What is your reasoning for it?

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

you can own a tank if you want

but don't say its a personal weapon, or you need it to defend yourself as an individual because it's crew served. by definition, it means that another individual has to participate.

that's why I say that it's use as a weapon should be as part of a group, such as an organized militia.

Did you read my definition of

Did you read my definition of bearing arms? And if so, what part of it do you disagree with?

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

It's not that I disagree

It just seems like an incomplete definition because it doesn't address property rights. You excluded nukes, why? because it's hazardous material?or because of the scale of the damage that it can do?
ok,forget about nukes.we'll say you can't own that...but why stop there?

let's go down the food chain.
how about an aircraft carrier?
an f-16
an M-1 Abrams?
an M60 machine gun?
an assault rifle?
a semi auto pistol?

If you can preclude ownership of one, then you can do so for others. I think a better way to look at it is to distinguish between personal defense and collective defense when defining 'being armed', not to focus solely on what object that is being used.

I did not "exclude" nuclear

I did not "exclude" nuclear weapons. I said you cannot use them as a defense if it presents a clean and present danger for innocent people. That applies to ALL weapons used to defend yourself. If you are in space and some spaceship comes to kill you, you can use a nuclear weapon, if it defends YOU and not kill others than the aggressors. Hope that clears it up.

"If you can preclude ownership of one, then you can do so for others."

Where did I preclude ownership of anything? You can own 100 hand grenades, but you can't use them in a crowded theater to defend against one person trying to stab you. I explained all of this.

The focus should be on the object, BUT in the manner in which and WHEN it is used. You would agree that dropping a nuclear bomb in Iraq's biggest cities would be outside the scope of defending the US?

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Well... Let's go literal.

If I had the resources and know how, I'd start a firearm manufacturing company called BEAR ARMS and manufacture any firearm I could imagine and sell to whom ever I wished.

"Judge, cut me some slack here, I'm in the constitution."

End of argument.

Viva la Revolution fellow Patriots.
Peace \ /

Somewhere there are men planning the next destructive and evil ploy to make this world their own... The common man is not part of that plan as we would see fit... Merely pawns to be used against one another.

"First, people need to STOP

"First, people need to STOP saying second amendment right, or constitutional right, because it implies that the constitution and its amendments gave you rights. It did NOT! It protects them. You have natural rights and they cannot be taken away. government is instituted to protect them. The sole purpose of government."

I take issue with this statement.

Fundamentally, you have no rights. The only "rights" you have are those that you can ensure that you get. Screaming about how you have property rights means nothing when a roving band of thugs is kicking you out of your house. But having a legal system in place that protects your rights secures you rights. You get to go to the legal system and get your house back. Ultimately, you have no rights if others do not recognize your rights or can take them away.

The Constitution is basically forcing everyone to agree to upholding certain rights, thereby giving everyone the security that certain things will be protected. Some might say that any constitution is merely enforcing a social contract, or recognizing "rights" that a certain society feels are important.

That being said, we should have the right to arm guns. Government should be able to protect all that has been promised to us (protection of our propery, etc.) without needing to take away our guns. Moreover, the whims of the majority (government) should not infringe on our rights.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

"Fundamentally, you have no

"Fundamentally, you have no rights." Completely disagree. Maybe we have two different definitions of "rights."

Because someone wants to steal from you, doesn't negate you have the right to the property they are trying to steal.

"The Constitution is basically forcing everyone to agree to upholding certain rights"

I take issue with that statement. It is instituting a body (Government) selected to protect those rights.

But if you can define "right" maybe we can agree more. To me a "right" is necessity to living. A right to eat, a right to shelter, a right to defend against imposing forces, etc. In the wild YOU have to ensure that those rights are enforced. In a civilized society we hire people to do it for us.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

"'Fundamentally, you have no

"'Fundamentally, you have no rights.;" Completely disagree. Maybe we have two different definitions of 'rights.'"

It isn't that I think we SHOULD have rights. That there are some basic things we should grant everyone. Or, that there are some other non-basic things we should have because it is good for the economy/society/prosperity etc.

"Because someone wants to steal from you, doesn't negate you have the right to the property they are trying to steal."

It doesn't take away from the right that you think you have to that property, yes.

But unless you can get that property back (unless you have some kind of recourse to that property), what does your imagined right matter? It is the enforcement of that right that matters.

"'The Constitution is basically forcing everyone to agree to upholding certain rights'"

I take issue with that statement. It is instituting a body (Government) selected to protect those rights. "

And government forces everyone to agree to upholding certain rights, using the Constitution.

"But if you can define 'right' maybe we can agree more. To me a 'right' is necessity to living. A right to eat, a right to shelter, a right to defend against imposing forces"

I guess those are rights. You have a right to eat, provided you can earn food. You have a right to shelter, provided you can earn it. Etc. etc. I do think you have a right to defend yourself against imposing forces without legal ramifications/with legal protection from "blowback". However, I don't think that right is endless. For example, there is the example of a store owner that grabbed a shoplifter and tortured her instead of handing her over to the police. That crosses a line.

"In the wild YOU have to ensure that those rights are enforced. In a civilized society we hire people to do it for us."

Kind of my point. In any case, the enforcement and recognition of the rights is not itself a right.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

I think we are talking apples

I think we are talking apples and oranges.

Rights are not granted. There is nothing to grant. They are there when you are born. They are the necessities of life.

"It is the enforcement of that right that matters."

I already explained in nature, YOU have to enforce your rights. In a civil society Government does it. I am not sure what you are arguing about.

"And government forces everyone to agree to upholding certain rights, using the Constitution."

What? Government doesn't force anyone to agree to uphold rights. You are looking at this backwards. There is nothing to agree on. Your natural rights are just that. Natural rights. In nature you enforce them. In civil societies Government does.

"For example, there is the example of a store owner that grabbed a shoplifter and tortured her instead of handing her over to the police. That crosses a line."

How is that defending yourself? You have taken the crux of the discussion and extended it to things obviously not included. Why on Earth would torturing someone EVER be considered self defense?

"Kind of my point. In any case, the enforcement and recognition of the rights is not itself a right."

YES IT IS. You have a right to defend yourself. That IS a right. Enforcing it by using force to defend yourself from harm or protecting your property, like a baby or shelter IS a right.

It is NOT a right that Government does it. That is a duty Government is given by the community. But under no circumstances can that Government prevent you from having those rights.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

What are natural rights? If

What are natural rights?

If you empower government (or give to government the duty) of protecting those rights, are you doing justice by those in the community who don't believe that natural rights are indeed rights?

You may enforce your own rights. But can you conscript others (government) to defend you rights for you? Can you force others to accept your definition of natural rights?

As you said, in "wild" society you have to defend your own rights. Isn't that basically saying that your rights only exist to the point that you can defend them? Same with when you empower government to protect your rights...your rights only exist as much as you + the government can protect them/not enroach on them.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

"who don't believe that

"who don't believe that natural rights are indeed rights?"

Who doesn't believe you have a right to eat, provide shelter for yourself and your family and the right to defend against aggressors? Find me one person who doesn't agre and maybe we can talk.

Think of a right as a NECESSITY of life.

"Can you force others to accept your definition of natural rights?" See above answer.

"Isn't that basically saying that your rights only exist to the point that you can defend them"

No, a right is a right. Enforcement of that right is different. You are talking about whether or not you will be successful with your rights. Some will, others won't. Not everyone is successful at finding food, providing shelter and defending themselves. But the rights still remain with them.

Government is a different story because they are delegated to protect the rights, and with that respect if they don't do their job, you have to.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

"Who doesn't believe you have

"Who doesn't believe you have a right to eat, provide shelter for yourself and your family and the right to defend against aggressors?"

I want to point out two things about this. This is kind of what I am talking about when it comes to rights that you can enforce/protect.

You can say that you have a right to eat. Isn't that meaningless unless you also have a right to food? It is such a silly kind of logic. It is the same thing when Obama says that Obamacare isn't a mandate; you can avoid it by paying taxes. Ridiculous.

The other point is that some people are actually born without mouths. Others with digestive issues that practically preclude them from eating. Do they have a right to eating?

"Find me one person who doesn't agre and maybe we can talk."

Barack Obama? The pope? CEO of Monsanto? Kim-Jong Un?

Literally, are you saying there has never been nor will there ever be an individual who disagrees with this natural rights? Hell, to this day, we still have people who believe in the morality behind slavery. It wasn't too long ago that it was the worldwide norm. The exact idea that you don't have a right to the things you mentioned.

Now, can you force others to accept your definition of rights?

"No, a right is a right. Enforcement of that right is different. You are talking about whether or not you will be successful with your rights. Some will, others won't. Not everyone is successful at finding food, providing shelter and defending themselves. But the rights still remain with them."

Under this logic, you are basically saying "you have the right to TRY and find food, the right to TRY and find shelter, the right to TRY and defend yourself".

What if someone else tries to prevent you from finding food, finding shelter, etc. You say he has no right to that, but he is much stronger than you and can whip you into compliance. What is the plan now?

You need to go in more detail about these rights. If I take someone else's shelter, have I violated any rights? We both have the right to find shelter, I have now earned the right to that certain shelter.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

You are still talking about

You are still talking about the success in the enforcement of your NATURAL rights. Not all people will be successful. I already said that.

"If I take someone else's shelter, have I violated any rights?" YES YOU HAVE.

"Barack Obama? The pope? CEO of Monsanto? Kim-Jong Un?" Get outta here. Show me where they say a person does not have the right to eat, provide shelter and defend themselves. In fact, find ANYONE with EVIDENCE, not just your mouth, that says that.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

You are saying that natural

You are saying that natural rights and natural rights because everyone agrees that they exist, no?

"'If I take someone else's shelter, have I violated any rights?' YES YOU HAVE"

Why? As you said, he has a right to FIND shelter, not to a right to the shelter itself.

"'Barack Obama? The pope? CEO of Monsanto? Kim-Jong Un?' Get outta here. Show me where they say a person does not have the right to eat, provide shelter and defend themselves. In fact, find ANYONE with EVIDENCE, not just your mouth, that says that."

Wouldn't you say that their actions justify that they believe that? Wouldn't you say that Obama's proposed gun ban is exactly that?

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

I am not sure if you are

I am not sure if you are really being genuine or just playing with me, but your arguments are silly, or maybe you don't understand what I write.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

I think you can't respond to

I think you can't respond to them as you realize your basis of your morality has no foundation.

But let us just agree to disagree.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

What are you talking about? I

What are you talking about? I responded to you SEVERAL TIMES, but your argument makes no sense and I have explained my positon. You can either accept that or not.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Problematic

Because that clause presumes a dependence on what others have to justify your own fortified guardianship.

If the function of government is to distill conscience, I agree instead with

-mass armament being conferred to a civil trust while under the dutiful compact of open administration and transferred assignment if unethical conduct is subsequently committed

Similarly

-fully automatic weapons [ie. multiple rounds per single trigger mechanics] being reserved to military service

-semi-automatics [ie. single rounds/single trigger] being privately maintained at home

-simpler action can be publicly registered under concealed-carry

To me the type weapon doesn't

To me the type weapon doesn't matter, as long as it does not present a clear and present danger to innocent people when used as self defense. No weapon should ever be used for aggression.

Any why would fully automatic weapons be reserved for military only? First, we are the military... per United States code, Title 10 § 311(a). "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, [omitted], under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States."

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

>

1) To me the type weapon doesn't matter, as long as it does not present a clear and present danger to innocent people when used as self defense

Partial disagreement: if my neighbor's megaton bomb inadvertently detonates, multitudes can be annihilated due to one individual's irresponsibility. Public trusts including the military however legally enact a higher civil standard when stewarding heavy armament

2) why would fully automatic weapons be reserved for military only?

If the function of government is to distill conscience, fully automatic weapons fire multiple rounds per singular trigger and therefore elude ethical examination for other singular persons when executing life or death

3) we are the military... per United States code, Title 10 § 311(a). "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, [omitted], under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States."

Partial disagreement: private and public domains differ in functional prerogatives such as personal support and civil service. Subsequently I am not opposed to federal emergency assistance,
so long as individuals have a choice not to participate

"if my neighbor's megaton

"if my neighbor's megaton bomb inadvertently detonates"

The question is, does a megaton bomb present a clear and present danger if you keep it next to neighbors? I say it is. Then again, your argument can then be used against someone owning a stove which can accidentally blow up and cause a fire that spreads to the neighbors house.

"If the function of government is to distill conscience, fully automatic weapons fire multiple rounds per singular trigger and therefore elude ethical examination for other singular persons when executing life or death"

I don't know what that means.

"Partial disagreement: private and public domains differ in functional prerogatives such as personal support and civil service."

I am not sure what you are disagreeing with. The Militia means the military AND any man between 17 and 45. You are not required to own a gun so there is no force there.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

>

1) your argument can then be used against someone owning a stove which can accidentally blow up and cause a fire that spreads to the neighbors house

Disagreement: the initial blast of the exploding stove is determinably smaller (and likely proportional from 1 person to another) in public scope than the bomb (ie. 1 person to multiple), while ensuing flames are incidental and largely unpredictable. Hence civil stewardship is unnecessary

2) I don't know what that means

Sorry, it's another way to say that the virtual principle of 1 individual being ethically conscientious of another's life or death is practically lost with multiple rounds to 1 trigger mechanisms (tough to describe but hope that clarifies)

3) I am not sure what you are disagreeing with

Sorry again: arguably the difference between a militia and the military is that the former is a private association bound by personal ethics, while the other is a civil organization bound by civil law