.JPG)
Uncompromising libertarianism
I suppose it is time to once again remind people what rights are, and what the purpose of the Bill of Rights was.
I say this because someone has posted a comment demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have no clue what a right is, and don't understand what the Bill of Rights had to do with rights; specifically the right to own and to carry arms mentioned in the Second Amendment.
A right is something you can do, without asking permission from anyone, simply because you are alive. Anything that does not violate another person's identical and equal rights is within your rights to do, whether trivial or monumentally important. A right can not be limited, regulated, restricted, licensed, or taxed. It can only be respected or violated. A right does not place an obligation on anyone else on your behalf, and "having to put up with being offended" by your actions does not equal an "obligation" on anyone else. In other words, as long as you are not harming or threatening to harm any innocent person while you exercise your right it doesn't matter how upset, offended, or "scared" someone gets by your actions, they have no right to try to stop you.
The Bill of Rights was misnamed as it did nothing to "give" you rights, but was simply written and ratified to make it illegal for government, at any level (yes, even without the 14th Amendment- read the Constitution if you don't believe me. Article IV, Section 2) to make any "laws" in an attempt to violate anyone's pre-existing rights (a redundant phrase).
You don't have "Second Amendment rights", the government has "Second Amendment limits". That they choose to illegally and illegitimately ignore and violate those limits doesn't affect your rights in the least. It only affects your liberty, which is the freedom to exercise those rights.
Private individuals are not prohibited from violating your rights by the Bill of Rights, but by the nature of rights and by the fact that your rights do not exist at their whim. Their rights do not nullify your rights in any way. Anyone, whether a government thug, a private individual, or an employer, who chooses to violate your rights in any way, using any justification, is not your friend, but a mortal enemy. If they do not trust you as a fully-functional human being with all your rights intact, they do not trust you at all and you should not trust them either.
Would being armed have saved the victims of the jealous murderer in Albuquerque Monday? There is no way to know, as there seems to have been no warning before the shooting began. One thing that is absolutely certain is that being unarmed, whether by Emcor Corp. policy or through irresponsibility, saved no lives. Your life is in your hands. Protect it.
Comments
Kent,
Is not then the very notion of claiming "rights" something akin to begging leave of one's master?
Personally, while I share the moral sentiment, I have the notion that rights are more of a cage than a key. For instance, if I would say you have the right to do as you will, so long as you cause no one else harm, I've created a paradox. Harm is, of course, totally subjective. This means that it is up for debate. Some people might well(for good reason)consider my kareoke singing to be harmful, but there are some who like my tipsy renditions of "Ohio" or "Taxman"...not many, but there are some.
Of course, those who don't like it might leave, or they might appeal to the bar owner to get me to leave(or at least shut up).
Sadly, it seems to me that people, when they are imbued with the notion that they have the "right" to evade "harm", are willing to resort to third party force to do so. That might be a bar owner or the batfe. Which causes me to ask, who benefits from "rig
Last ended with "rights?"
Why can't the character count be ....right?
mhstahl- "Harm" is not subjective except to those who are being dishonest and want to control the peaceful actions of other people for whatever reason. "Harm" includes initiated force, fraud, or theft; not "offense". Your karaoke singing can't harm anyone, although it may offend them. Those who are listening to you, other than the owner of the bar, have no right to not be treated to your joyful noise as long as you don't tie them to a barstool to force them to stay and listen. If they try to use force, or third party force, to stop your actions they are subject to justifiable self defensive actions from you. You have no obligation to defend your rights if you don't want to, but I benefit from knowing my rights and respecting the identical and equal rights in others.
An actual, functional, definition of rights will never be found in the political arena. Rights are actually just mutually respected and reciprocated claims. We negotiate the exercise of our rights all the time. You claim space to be in, people either respect that claim and move around you, or you have a conflict. You claim property, and by claiming your property, you respect another's claim to their property. We're always negotiating our rights. I may claim the right to be armed. You may claim that no one on your property may be armed. Our claims are in conflict and so we must negotiate a resolution. That resolution may be a temporary relax of one of our claims, or maybe an exception. Or maybe we agree to not interact. What is truly inalienable are not the rights, but the ability to make and negotiate claims and actions.
Harm is either physical or financial. These can be shown ie a broken arm or money stolen or damage to your car. No other harm can be show or proven. You may not like to see or hear something but it does not harm you in any way. It may offend you if so you can always leave or look away
I must say you have said it well. Congratulations.
Quote
"You don't have "Second Amendment rights", the government has "Second Amendment limits". end
Good article but there are a few things wrong with the authors offering. Among these is the quote above specificaly the underlined word.
It doesn't limit the government, it forbids the government. The Resolution of First the first Congress explains it.
Quote
The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its power, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added; And as extending the ground of public conficence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. end
So, people can debate what the word 'restrictive' means in the quote above, they can refer to the founders quotes and conclusions
Bingo! Well said Mr. McManigal.
And, I'll add, each of the first Ten Amendments added to the original 1787 Constitution in 1791 that make up "The Bill of Rights", do indeed "Amend" the Constitution.
With that so, items such as "The Supremacy Clause", "The Commerce Clause" and a number of other items from within the original 1787 Constitution, became limited in nature, by the nature of "The Bill of Rights Amendments", added in 1791.
Far too often politicians, the courts, and bureaucrats try to play deaf, dumb and blind, hoping they won't have to face those facts, as they pursue ever increasing unconstitutional agendas.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!