- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 686
- Likes
- 111
This.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Gura brief was filed today.
- Thread starter PaulD
- Start date
This.
All people are born with natural rights. These rights are inalienable meaning that a person cannot give them away and a government cannot take them away. Although these rights cannot be taken away they can be disabled, but only with due process. The fundamental natural rights are life, liberty, and property. The right to self defense, for example, would fall under the right to life.
Every individual has natural rights whether or not they are part of a society. They bring these rights with them upon entering a social contract such as a constitution. However, there are also non-natural rights that arise out of the social contract and these rights could be called contractual rights. These rights are rights that an individual would not have in a pure state of nature living outside of a society with no social contract. These are both rights and privileges because these rights come as a privilege as to being a member or citizen of the society.
Here are some of the natural rights mentioned in the constitution:
- An individual has a right not to be killed, injured or abused and to keep and bear arms for this purpose
- to assemble peaceably
- to express or publish one's opinions
- to practice one's religion
- to be secure in their persons houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures
Here are some of the non-natural or contractual rights mentioned in the constitution:
- A citizen has a right to petition the government for a redress of grievances
- not to be charged more than once for the same offense
- not to be compelled to testify against oneself
- not to have excessive bail required
- to a speedy trial
- not to have a cruel or unusual punishment inflicted upon oneself
Can you see the distinction? An individual has natural rights from the day they are born and these rights are not dependent on a social compact such as our own constitution. These rights come from nature.
But non-natural rights do arise from the social contract. For example, if you were living in a pure state of nature outside of a society you would not have a right to a speedy trial. After all, there are no courts in a pure state of nature. This is a right that comes as a result of our social contract and as a privilege of being an American.
I hope this helps. Many people have a hard time understanding the concept of natural rights vs. non-natural rights.
Friday
NES Member
This might be a semantic point, but the Constitution defines what it considers to be natural rights, vs. those rights it enumerates as privileges.
Just because it is written, does not make it the final authority on what are the innate rights to humans beings on this earth. It is one set of ideals set forth by those who drafted the document.
I'm not trying to start a philosophical debate; perhaps Scrivener's return has me all boolean thinking, or something, now.
Just because it is written, does not make it the final authority on what are the innate rights to humans beings on this earth. It is one set of ideals set forth by those who drafted the document.
I'm not trying to start a philosophical debate; perhaps Scrivener's return has me all boolean thinking, or something, now.
The constitution does not define natural rights vs. others. Where are you getting this from?
Edit: You might have thought that after reading my post. I separated them out when making the lists. They are all mixed together in the Bill of Rights.
Last edited:
Natural rights can always be taken away by this little thing called government. It has been going on since the invention of government. It will always be easier to control people if they have nothing and are forced to rely on the government for everything.
Welcome back, Keith.
There are a few (very few) parts of the BoR that clearly don't rise to the level of "natural rights". For example, the 7th Amendment guarantee that "in suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved." The 9th and 10th Amendments also make no sense as natural rights, but only in the context of the newly created federal government. I would differ more strongly, however, regarding the description of "mere states" subordinate to the central authority of the federal government. This does seem to be the de facto situation in which we find ourselves today (and pretty much have since 1865), but it's hardly derives from any Constitutional basis. The sovereign states created a federal government to which they delegated certain clearly enumerated powers, authorizing this creature to act on their behalf in certain specified areas. In addition to these limited, delegated powers, they explicitly prohibited the central government from violating certain rights of the people, even when acting within the enumerated areas delegated to them. This is probably one reason why there's so little attention paid to the Constitution these days, since doing so tends to raise troubling questions regarding the supreme position of the federal government and the idea of the states as its vassals.
Ken
Friday
NES Member
yes, that is what I read from your post- I read that you were "declaring" these as they were written as such in the constitution.
Again, not trying to start a pissing match,it just jumped out in a peculiar way to me the way it was written ...
J
Jose
I am in the camp of the latter.
The overwhelming majority of states do not license the mere act of owning firearms. And carrying one, openly or concealed, should not be subject so either.
Only Vermont and Alaska have it right.
The problem with "reasonable" restrictions is... who gets to decide what's reasonable? MA gun laws are "reasonable", if the antis had their way then you would "reasonably" have no right to firearms at all.
No, "reasonable" is too vague and can be too manipulated. You either have a right to defend yourself by whatever means necessary, or you don't.
No, "reasonable" is too vague and can be too manipulated. You either have a right to defend yourself by whatever means necessary, or you don't.
My use of the term "mere states" referred to the inevitable result of becoming part of an entity which requires - albeit for an ostensibly greater good - the sacrifice of one's autonomy, to a greater or lesser degree.
We both know the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were (somewhat redundant) assertions of the intent to limit the ability of the Federal government to oppress the states.
We also both know the contemptuous dismissal of the Ninth Amendment as "a nullity" in the concurring opinion in Wickard v. Filburn, the infamous "wheat case."
Indeed, the erosion of the states' power, still less "rights," begins largely with the Great Depression and the desperate measures taken to get out of it. Follow that with the exigencies of being the "Arsenal of Democracy" in a global, multi-front war and the runaway abuse of the "Commerce Clause" to implement Federal policy and you wind up where we are now.
I'd call it desperate measures to increase federal power in the process of *appearing* to get out of it, while actually prolonging it. I agree completely that it was a key turning point in our path to statism.
What you should have a problem with is that they got out. There is nothing stopping that person from getting a gun and killing someone just because. Or they could use a knife, car, or other tool. You are going on emotion, not logic here.
I agree with regards to sentencing laws, but when a person commits a serious crime they've effectively proven themselves to be unfit to be trusted with a fire arm legally, though I'd also be ok if there is was a time frame in between release and when they can carry again (5 - 10 years).
