| sc94597 said: I didn't say (or mean if I did say it) "the right to bear arms" is inherent, it's just the only means to secure the inherent right to self-defence. It was considered a duty by the government, and the right to own property of any kind is also an inherent right. So it's two-fold and compacted. Also the distinction between a right and privelege must be made. A person can survive happily without the realization of priveleges. This is not the same for rights. They're inherent, because all people are entitled to them and strive for them. This is including things like liberty, freedom, life, property, happiness, etc, etc. Without them, the government isn't acting in the interests of the entire people, but rather some majority or even minority, and should be abolished. Privileges on the otherhand are given by the government to enable certain freedoms more efficiently. An example would be taxing to build roads and transportation, or funding research. This is the debate of negative vs. positive liberty. Both are important, but without negative liberties people will have less freedom to make their lives better through their own actions and are dependent on government to change things, which is bad because the goverment isn't as efficient nor as interested in everyone's problems. While positive liberties are advantages, yes, but certainly one can live a happy life without them, yet they're necessary for structural improvement. One shouldn't have to give up negative liberties to obtain positive liberties, and that is important to understand. And it is impossible to remove these rights. The government can take the means to "self-defence" such as guns, but they can't take the urge of all human beings to pursue it. They can take the means to free-speech and freedom of expression, but they can't take the urge of all human beings to pursue it. It's this pursuit that makes it an inalienable right. Tyrannical governments ignore this fact and take away the means to realize these rights, but they don't take away the human despair which comes with this oppression. This isn't even a debate in the United States, so it isn't a problem. edit: The last paragraph is substantiated by the absence of outright slavery in free societies, by the way. It was learned that slaves always rebel. |
I don't see why there is an inherent right to self-defense, either, or an inherent right to own property. These are things that society has decided upon as "rights", but it is entirely possible to imagine a society in which such rights do not exist. Therefore, they are not inherent rights. And by the way, not all people strive for all of the things you listed as "inherent" - there are plenty of people out there who are strict pacifists, who believe that "Self-defense" in any form other than retreat is wrong. There are plenty of people out there considering suicide - they certainly aren't striving for life.
And again, it's a question of what society considers to be rights, there's no magical force making something an absolute right. The closest you can get is what I'd call "natural rights" - rights which form in just about every successful society.
You seem to think that "right" means "things that people always want". Most people want some level of power - few like feeling powerless. Does that make power a right? No, of course not, that would be ludicrous. The vast majority in America want god to exist - that doesn't make god's existence a right. Rights are things that society has chosen as important things that make that society better. And this is why those rights get codified into constitutions. In Islamic countries, many consider women being properly veiled to be something that makes society better - in their view, the right to not be exposed to an unveiled woman is greater than the right of the woman to wear what she wants. In our society, a similar standard applies to clothes covering genitalia - the right of people to not have to look at your genitalia overrides the right of you to wear what you want. Now, every person wants to be able to wear whatever clothes they like... why is this not an "inherent right"?
I also can't help but draw attention to your use of the phrase "free societies". The very fact that you can use that term proves that you are wrong. Even today, slavery exists in many countries, sadly. And economic slavery exists in America, too (note: I'm not talking about the cranky, conspiracy theory crap, but actual economic slavery - people forced to do demeaning and disgusting tasks because the only alternative is starvation).
Oh, and by the way - when a society grants rights and doesn't attach responsibilities to those rights, things become problematic. In most free societies, there is a right to freedom of movement - you can go essentially where you please (within limits). But if you commit a crime, you lose that freedom. It is not an inherent right, it is a right that can be taken away should you fail in your responsibility - in this case, the responsibility to not commit crimes. Every right except the right to life should come with a responsibility that means that the right may be taken away if the responsibility is not satisfied. Why is the right to life different? Because it's the most fundamental one for the functioning of society.
Anyway, there's a big difference between "you have a right to defend yourself" and "you have a right to own a gun" in any case. You can defend yourself without a gun. Guns are made to kill, not to defend. And if you pay close attention, the constitution wasn't granting the right to bear arms to permit self-defense within the country. It was rather explicit - it was to permit defense of country from those who might invade. In other words, it was permitting a reserve army - also known as a "well-regulated militia" (hence the use of that term in the amendment).
