RSS
Home
Philosophy 101: Is there such a thing as an ‘absolute right?’
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
In the debate about the Second Amendment and its interpretation (no, this argument was not concluded by last summer’s Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller) some insist that the Second Amendment is “an absolute right.”
Indeed, in one recent discussion about guns in parks, one individual asserted, “The 2A is an absolute right. Endorse it absolutely…”)
Among the definitions of “absolute” offered on-line by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is “being, governed by, or characteristic of a ruler or authority completely free from constitutional or other restraint,” and further, “having no restriction, exception, or qualification.”
However, according to Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller, “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…”
The Brady Campaign insists that it is subject to all kinds of restrictions, the more the better. While they can no longer claim the Second Amendment does not protect an individual civil right, they still want to regulate that right to the level of a highly restricted privilege.
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" - Justice Antonin Scalia
Freedom of religion does not allow one to practice human or animal sacrifice.
Freedom of speech does not allow yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater.
Freedom of the press does not allow us to libel others.
Do we have the absolute right to carry firearms in a deliberately provocative or dangerous manner; that is, to intentionally shock, intimidate or endanger others?
If you answer “No” to the last one, then the Second Amendment in a strict sense is not “absolute” at all, but subject to “reasonable restriction.”
Perhaps we are not talking about an “absolute” right but a “fundamental” right. As such, this right would be a “basic principle, rule, law, or the like, that serves as the groundwork of a system; (an) essential part.”
Author P.J. O’Rourke once observed, “There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.”
“Chuck” from Pennsylvania says, “I believe that a right, ANY right, is only ‘absolute’ until it causes harm to another. But, unless and until it causes that harm, it IS absolute. If it causes no harm, then there is no reason, logical, ‘reasonable’ or otherwise, to infringe upon that right.”
“Jim” had this observation: “Forget about the Platonic Ideal of an ‘absolute right’, there is always somebody or something to limit your rights. I dare say even the Founders did not consider their laundry list to be absolute.
“Even gun owners can find some restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms,” he added. “Few would favor selling a paroled felon a pistol in order to maintain a record of absolute right.”
That got a reaction from “Harold,” who commented, “I’ve always felt that even a felon should be able to keep a weapon at home for self defense, with the caveat that using it in his criminal profession should result in summary execution.”
“Mike” wrote, “Nothing is absolute in this world except death. We only have and keep those rights as long as we're willing to fight for them. Everything else is just wishful thinking.”
An American citizen ought to be able to own any kind of gun he or she wants.
Geoff in Arizona stated: “No TANGIBLE civil right is absolute. Maybe, if one was the only human on the planet.
“Intangible civil rights, however – Life, Liberty, the PURSUIT of Happiness (where Pursuit is the salient word to the entire discussion)…are absolute and cannot be taken, regulated or diminished,” he added
“I think the key in this discussion is that difference between a ‘physical’ and a ‘mental’ Civil Right. After many years of playing the ‘what if’ game, I’ve never found a case where a physical right is absolute under all circumstances.”
“Tim” in Tennessee summed it up eloquently.
“Most of what we consider 'freedoms' are not at all,” he said. “Freedom of speech has been moderated in almost every venue. You can yell ‘Fire!’ if you like, but the law says you will be punished for it…
“So, are we free? No,” he added. “Are freedoms inherent? No. They are earned. Think of our own Constitution. This was not a document given by God, it was crafted by men. It was crafted after we WON our freedom. We fought for it, many died for it, many still die for it. But we are constantly under attack and we constantly give up a little here and a little there.”
An American citizen ought to be able to own any kind of gun he or she wants. It is none of my business, or yours, and certainly none of the government’s, how many or what kind of guns a person owns. As long as they aren’t hurting people, robbing banks or endangering or threatening other citizens, or otherwise being nuisances, who cares? Want to carry a concealed handgun for personal safety? Go ahead. Want to carry one openly? Fine.
Which brings us around to the national parks issue; in nine months, it will be legal to carry a loaded firearm concealed or openly – pursuant to the laws of the state in which the park is located – for personal protection. This does not mean you can hunt, shoot targets or otherwise misbehave.
The National Park Service’s recent report revealed that 11 murders, 35 rapes, 61 robberies and 261 aggravated assaults occurred on parklands in 2006. - National Rifle Association
Opponents have argued that this statute will make parks less safe. Well, according to the National Rifle Association and National Park Service statistics, parks are not exactly risk-free environments right now.
In the years between 2002 and 2007, there were 63 homicides in national parks, 240 rapes or attempted rapes, 309 robberies, 37 kidnappings and 1,277 aggravated assaults, according to NPS data.
In 2006, the NRA noted (again quoting NPS data), there were “11 murders, 35 rapes, 61 robberies and 261 aggravated assaults… Between April and December 2007 there were at least a dozen grizzly bear attacks reported by park visitors.”
The new law will take effect in 2010. Until then, don’t “jump the gun.”
Visit these other Gun Rights Examiners:
For more info: Second Amendment Foundation, National Rifle Association,
Related Articles:
Comments
Out of the carnage committed by a lone gunman armed with two handguns at Fort Hood on Thursday, there was one refreshing moment of total candor, if …
The philosophy of self-reliance seems to have always been a curiously American trait and one that evidently still strongly exists in the cultural gene …
