U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: Common Misconceptions About Rights
Source:
Tenth Amendment Center
URL Source: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/201 ... n-misconceptions-about-rights/
Published: Feb 16, 2016
Author: Benedict D. LaRosa, Future of Freedom Fo
Post Date: 2016-02-16 19:41:53 by Hondo68
Ping List: *Bang List* Subscribe to *Bang List*
Keywords: None
Views: 2387
Comments: 24
The debate about gun rights sparked by President Obama’s recent executive actions and his town hall meeting of January 7, 2016, has brought to light several popular misconceptions, of which the following are some of the more egregious. Misconception #1: Only United States citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, and then only within the borders of the United States. Answer: A right is something everyone has by virtue of their humanity. Rights derive from the“Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” as stated in the Declaration of Independence, and predate all governments as the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in District of Columbia v. Heller (June 2008). The Second Amendment uses the term “people” not “citizens” to remind us of the universal nature of this right. The fact that some governments do not honor this or other rights is immaterial to their possession. Misconception #2: Governments may alter or abolish a right. Answer: Rights are “unalienable” (Declaration of Independence), which means they cannot be taken or even given away. They are not derived from government, so they cannot be taken away by government. All anyone can do is punish someone for exercising a right, or impede its exercise by force or persuasion. Nevertheless, individuals still have the right. Misconception #3: The right to keep and bear arms derives from the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Answer: The Second Amendment does not grant a right, but recognizes the natural, preexisting right that everyone possesses to arm themselves for hunting, sport, and self-defense. The lack of a Second Amendment would not affect the right to keep and bear arms one iota. The Supreme Court held in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), that the right “of bearing arms for a lawful purpose” is “not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” Misconception #4: Mandatory background checks and filling out government forms to purchase or transfer firearms are not infringements on the right to keep and bear arms. Answer: Acquiring and disposing of lawfully gained property is a basic natural right. Any impediment is an infringement, and both of the above are impediments. They set the dangerous legal precedent that government permission is needed to buy or sell private property with a fee determined by that same government. If government has the authority to force individuals to obtain its permission at some expense to buy or sell firearms, then it can do so for anything else at its whim. Not only does this violate property rights and the right to contract for any legal purpose, but it also makes a mockery of the concept of a limited government. Misconception #5: Government may restrict rights for the common good. After all, the right to free speech is limited because you cannot yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Answer: The only times anyone may restrict a right is when the person restricted is incapable of safely exercising it as in the case of an unsupervised child or mentally incompetent person, has abused the right, or infringes on the right of another. A person yelling “Fire!” falsely in a crowded theater has abused the right of private ownership of property and may be punished for doing so. Similarly, a person who abuses a weapon may be punished for doing so. However, the abuser’s actions should not be the basis for restricting the right of non-abusers. Government may forbid possession or use in certain sensitive places under its control, or where it would present a danger to others such as shooting within the confines of a crowded city. Individuals may also restrict the possession of weapons on their private property. Misconception #6: The government is only obligated to protect Constitutional rights. Answer: There is no such thing as Constitutional rights. There are rights enumerated within that document. But the 9th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that “The enumeration of the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” In addition, the Declaration of Independence informs us that the purpose of government is to secure the rights of the people. This concept of only recognizing and protecting enumerated rights is a fallacy created by judges and politicians to justify denying or disparaging others retained by the people, and should not be tolerated. Misconception #7: The Founders never envisioned the destructiveness of modern weapons which are too dangerous for private individuals to own. Answer: Actually, they did, hence the general term “arms” is used in the Second Amendment encompassing whatever is prevalent in its day. As St. George Tucker, a militia officer during the Revolution, legal scholar, and Federal Court judge appointed by James Madison wrote in defense of the wording of the Second Amendment, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree.” Tucker elaborated that the reason for the broad wording was because, “In most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible.” Trench Coxe, Pennsylvania delegate to the earlier Annapolis convention, ally of James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, who served in the Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison administrations, wrote that, “Swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. What clause in the state or [federal] constitution hath given away that important right? . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” Misconception #8: We may only carry weapons concealed or open with government permission. Answer: The Second Amendment reminds us that we have a right to keep and bear arms. Bearmeans “to carry or to wear.” The amendment further states that this right may not be infringed, which means government may not legislate against even the edges or fringes of the right. Thus, we don’t need government permission to carry our weapons in any manner we choose, except as noted in the answer to Misconception #5. NOTE: This post was originally published on 01-21-16 at Explore Freedom by the Future of Freedom Foundation. Poster Comment: # 7 explains with historical backup the use of the term "arms" as being all inclusive. Any arms whatsoever. #1, anyone, anywhere. Iran, Iraq, Detroit, Sadam, George W. Bush, Hillary, Gadaffi, Bibi Netanyahu, whatever. It's a God given right to keep and bear arms.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: hondo68, All (#0)
The only rights that anyone has are de facto those that one can and is willing to defend.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I want my own nukes.
Do you think that Dollar Donald will let you have them? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
No. But my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Nukes are arms. I want some.
Perhaps the Vatican will assist with funding? It is not within the public good to permit you to possess weapons of mass destruction since it is not possible for you to provide adequate safeguards
Your faith in Republicans, Democrats and Likud parties is misplaced. IMO. George W. Bush and Obama are psycho nut cases, not to mention Bibi and Hillary! I like this quote because it underlines the radicalism of the American experiment and the importance of continuing it.
I think you need to understand that after 200 years the experiment is failing. More and more governments are pushing against the restrictions layed out in the american experiment. People have demonstrated over and over that the expirment was flawed in its exercution and that they want to give responsibility to individuals to do what has to be done
Not so much in the sphere of domestic firearms. I'd say they are on a roll and Prez Obola is their greatest salesman.
This article is the long argued, same old discussion about the difference between "natural and legal rights" for the inclusion in the Bill of Rights that the anti-federalists insisted be fundamental exclusions to the power granted by US Constitution in 1793 for federal goverence. The problem with "any rights" is they are often trampled by "power" whether declared "natural" or "legal." In the case of the US Constitution, the rights retained by the states/citizenry through the USConstitution or the Bill of Rights acting as exclusions to the "power" of government is they are easy targets to chip through semantics. "Rights are trampled" by the power of government and always will be. To paraphrase SoSo: "you only have rights as long as you are willing to fight for them."
Screw the "public good". A right is not limited by "the public good". It's a RIGHT, and it can't be INFRINGED. I want nukes. And mustard gas. And claymores. And I wanna buy a hawk missile battery or ten and park it right in my yard to protect my airspace. I want Sarin gas and superbugs. And weaponized rodents. Lots of those.
Vatican doesn't believe in WMD. I want to exercise my right to keep and bear arms by having WMD, including weaponized rodents.
Why not? It all depends on how a "right" is interpreted by some government official. As an example, the second amendment suggests: Suppose a court declares that you can keep your God given left and right arms attached to your body but all other considered arms (such as firearms) are a misconstrued idea never intended for publick use by the second amendment? What are you going to do then? Yell at the top of your lungs: You would be agreeing with the court decison, correct?
See, that's why there's a Second Amendment. It's the "Reset Button" on the Constitution. If things get crazy and my rights are being attacked, I want a cellar full of nukes so that I can incinerate half a state with a big fireball, and unleash weaponized rodents to repopulate the destruction zone. The surest way to avoid losing our rights is to have the ability to vaporize everything in a ten-mile radius.
LQQK, The US Constitution guarantees you can have two arms to fight in the militia. This is a GOD given right since you have two arms obviously endowed by the creator. Moreover, it is written into the US Constitution. What more do you want?
Then go git yo rights, boy. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I want Sarin gas and superbugs. And weaponized rodents. Lots of those. Then go git yo rights, Boy, if you can. Otherwise STFU. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
No. If I can't have my nukes and my weaponized rodents, then it's more fun to bitch about how I am being deprived of my rights than to STFU. Because maybe enough people will hear, and feel aggrieved, and then we'll all stand up for our rights, and before you know it, every house on the block will have a cellar full of nukes, garages full of mustard gas, jars of anthrax in the cupboard, a whole posse of weaponized rodents, and hawk missile batteries on the front and back lawns. And then finally we'll all be safe again.
No it does not. It uses the term "the people" -- a select group of citizens with full rights. When the Founders wanted to refer to everyone they used the term "persons". Words mean things. "Rights are “unalienable” ( (Declaration of Independence), which means they cannot be taken or even given away." Moot point. The U.S. Constitution was written to protect certain rights. Some rights are regulated or not protected at all. "The right to keep and bear arms derives from the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution." When it was written, the second amendment protected the right to keep and bear arms from federal infringement. State Constitutions protected the right to keep and bear arms from state infringement. "Any impediment is an infringement, and both of the above are impediments." Wrong again. Any right may be reasonably regulated. We regulate speech, for example. The USSC compares the interests of the state vs. the right of the individual using "strict scrutiny" in making their determination. "The only times anyone may restrict a right is when the person restricted is incapable of safely exercising it as in the case of an unsupervised child or mentally incompetent person, has abused the right, or infringes on the right of another." Up to this point, the author has claimed we all have this God-given “unalienable” right to keep and bear arms that NO ONE can take away. Now he says there are exceptions. But they're only limited to these things. That's it. He'll go no further. What a clown. "This concept of only recognizing and protecting enumerated rights is a fallacy created by judges and politicians ..." Straw man. If anything, the courts have gone the other way and recognized and protected rights that aren't there -- abortion, for one. Gay marriage, another. "The Founders never envisioned the destructiveness of modern weapons which are too dangerous for private individuals to own." It wasn't any of their business what private individuals owned. That was up to each state. The second amendment was written by the states to protect themselves (and their citizen-soldiers) from the newly-formed federal government organizing a federal army and taking away their state militias. "We may only carry weapons concealed or open with government permission." The Founders left that decision up to each state. As evidenced by the U.S. Constitution itself, They hated a one-size- fits-all government.
Gee, I don't know how to tell you this but I got my nukes and my weaponized rodents decades ago. All of us that have have just STFU about it. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
That was actually a good post, white, with a few minor details that skew the whole topic (such as what I detail above); but, I think you meant to say "Bill of Rights." Why don't you exhibit this sort of reason in all your posts?
The Second Amendment uses the term “people” not “citizens” to remind us of the universal nature of this right." Yes, words count, and the 2nd means 'the people' have a right to bear arms. "Rights are “unalienable” ( (Declaration of Independence), which means they cannot be taken or even given away." ARTICLE IX of the BOR's makes misterwhites silly point 'moot'. "The right to keep and bear arms derives from the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution." State constitutions are not required to protect our RTKABA's, as is evident in ca,ny,&il. This is another of misterwhites silly talking points. "Any impediment is an infringement, and both of the above are impediments." Quite true. The kicker is what misterwhite considers 'reasonable'. -- It ain't.. "The only times anyone may restrict a right is when the person restricted is incapable of safely exercising it as in the case of an unsupervised child or mentally incompetent person, has abused the right, or infringes on the right of another." Misterwhite is the clown, insisting that States like Ca can infringe on our rights to arms.. "This concept of only recognizing and protecting enumerated rights is a fallacy created by judges and politicians ..." Both of those rights are arguably personal rights, -- of women, and of queers. "The Founders never envisioned the destructiveness of modern weapons which are too dangerous for private individuals to own." Nor is it the business of a State. -- No infringements, State or Fed. This is a gun grabbers argument. -- Misterwhite 'outs' himself again... "We may only carry weapons concealed or open with government permission." No they didn't. That's what Statist gungrabbers argue.
When I refer to the U.S. Constitution, I am referring to the complete document, including the Bill of Rights. But, technically, you're correct. "Why don't you exhibit this sort of reason in all your posts?" I don't?
#2. To: hondo68 (#0)
#3. To: Vicomte13, hondo68 (#2)
I want my own nukes.
#4. To: SOSO (#3)
#5. To: Vicomte13, Birdman Weapons Systems (#2)
I want my own nukes.
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#6. To: Vicomte13 (#4)
But my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Nukes are arms. I want some.
#7. To: paraclete (#6)
it is not possible for you to provide adequate safeguards
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#8. To: hondo68 (#0)
Trench Coxe, Pennsylvania delegate to the earlier Annapolis convention, ally of James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, who served in the Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison administrations, wrote that, “Swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. What clause in the state or [federal] constitution hath given away that important right? . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
#9. To: TooConservative (#8)
the radicalism of the American experiment and the importance of continuing it.
#10. To: paraclete (#9)
More and more governments are pushing against the restrictions layed out in the american experiment.
#11. To: hondo68, SOSO (#0)
#12. To: paraclete (#6)
#13. To: hondo68 (#5)
#14. To: Vicomte13, paraclete (#12)
It's a RIGHT, and it can't be INFRINGED.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
A right is not limited by "the public good". It's a RIGHT, and it can't be INFRINGED.
#15. To: buckeroo (#14)
#16. To: Vicomte13 (#15)
See, that's why there's a Second Amendment. It's the "Reset Button" on the Constitution.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
#17. To: Vicomte13 (#4)
But my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Nukes are arms. I want some.
#18. To: Vicomte13 (#12)
I want nukes. And mustard gas. And claymores. And I wanna buy a hawk missile battery or ten and park it right in my yard to protect my airspace.
#19. To: SOSO (#18)
Otherwise STFU
#20. To: hondo68 (#0)
"The Second Amendment uses the term “people” not “citizens” to remind us of the universal nature of this right."
#21. To: Vicomte13 (#19)
No. If I can't have my nukes and my weaponized rodents, then it's more fun to bitch about how I am being deprived of my rights than to STFU.
#22. To: misterwhite, hondo68 (#20)
Moot point. The
U.S. Constitution [Bill of Rights] was written to protect certain rights. Some rights are regulated or not protected at all.
#23. To: misterwhite, 'outs' himself again... Y'ALL (#20)
misterwhite--- No it does not. It uses the term "the people" -- a select group of citizens with full rights. When the Founders wanted to refer to everyone they used the term "persons". --- Words mean things.
Moot point. The U.S. Constitution was written to protect certain rights. Some rights are regulated or not protected at all.
When it was written, the second amendment protected the right to keep and bear arms from federal infringement. State Constitutions protected the right to keep and bear arms from state infringement.
Wrong again. Any right may be reasonably regulated. We regulate speech, for example. The USSC compares the interests of the state vs. the right of the individual using "strict scrutiny" in making their determination.
Up to this point, the author has claimed we all have this God-given “unalienable” right to keep and bear arms that NO ONE can take away. Now he says there are exceptions. But they're only limited to these things. That's it. He'll go no further. --- What a clown.
Straw man. If anything, the courts have gone the other way and recognized and protected rights that aren't there -- abortion, for one. Gay marriage, another.
It wasn't any of their business what private individuals owned. That was up to each state.
The second amendment was written by the states to protect themselves (and their citizen-soldiers) from the newly-formed federal government organizing a federal army and taking away their state militias.
The Founders left that decision up to each state.
#24. To: buckeroo (#22)
"but, I think you meant to say "Bill of Rights."
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]