Arms trade treaty....

[batoncolle]

Do you understand what I mean when I say "functional difference"? Whether we "allowed them" or they just did it...the rights were taken away...



No, that is why the "in theory" part is so important.

Government is a tool to control and/or serve the people. That's it. We have whichever "rights" we demand, take, force them to give us...no more. If we, as a society, believe that we should have this or that right, then we have to work to establish and protect it. If we don't do what is necessary to establish or protect it, then we effectively don't have that right.

I know you want to believe in "god given rights" or whatever, but we are dealing with reality here. And the reality is that we only have the rights, in any meaningful manner, that we take and hold onto for ourselves. All your talk of "god given rights" is utterly useless except, perhaps, as a rhetorical tool.

So you do understand that the Constitution does not grant us rights... And we are not discussing God given rights, although you should be very glad this was how our country was founded. The Constitution is just a simple document that lists powers that we the people grant to the government.

 

[dunkel]

So you do understand that the Constitution does not grant us rights...

Again...you want to argue semantics. Our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and put certain rights in there that they thought were important. That was the "establish" part. Had they not put the 2nd Amendment in there, establishing the right to bear arms would have been quite difficult indeed. In a very real sense, we have the right to bear arms because it's in the Constitution. So in that sense, yes, it comes from the Constitution.

There is no supernatural yardstick by which we measure our rights or some grand authority which protects or grants them.

And we are not discussing God given rights, although you should be very glad this was how our country was founded.

Well, that's a whole other discussion, isn't it?

The Constitution is just a simple document that lists powers that we the people grant to the government.

And if we don't hold onto those rights, it doesn't matter from where they derive...we will functionally lose them.

 

[Constitution Hour]

A man only truly has those rights that he is willing to die defending.

 

[FrogMan]

A man only truly has those rights he is willing to die defending.

wow, talking about a drama queen

 

[dunkel]

A man only truly has those rights he is willing to die defending.

And anything worth dying for is certainly worth living for.

Joseph Heller in Catch-22

 

[batoncolle]

Again...you want to argue semantics. Our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and put certain rights in there that they thought were important. That was the "establish" part. Had they not put the 2nd Amendment in there, establishing the right to bear arms would have been quite difficult indeed. In a very real sense, we have the right to bear arms because it's in the Constitution. So in that sense, yes, it comes from the Constitution.

There is no supernatural yardstick by which we measure our rights or some grand authority which protects or grants them.



Well, that's a whole other discussion, isn't it?



And if we don't hold onto those rights, it doesn't matter from where they derive...we will functionally lose them.

The semantics aspect is very important because people have to understand that we grant the power to the government and not the other way around. And although the Constitution does enumerate certain limited powers we grant the government, many of the Founding Fathers did not want to even list these so-called "special rights" which is why we have the 9th and 10th.

 

[Hasselhoss]

wow, talking about a drama queen

Drama Queens

​

 

[dunkel]

The semantics aspect is very important because people have to understand that we grant the power to the government and not the other way around.

As I said...it's useful as a rhetorical tool. Whip up the masses and all.

And although the Constitution does enumerate certain limited powers we grant the government, many of the Founding Fathers did not want to even list these so-called "special rights" which is why we have the 9th and 10th.

You're right. The Founding Fathers were right about a lot of things...but I think they were wrong on this one. At least the ones who didn't want to list the rights specifically. If there was no BoR, where would we draw our arguments from when the government did take away our guns or freedom of speech? Look at England and Australia...both have long histories of gun ownership, but tradition didn't stand in the way of the bans, did it?

 

[batoncolle]

As I said...it's useful as a rhetorical tool. Whip up the masses and all.



You're right. The Founding Fathers were right about a lot of things...but I think they were wrong on this one. At least the ones who didn't want to list the rights specifically. If there was no BoR, where would we draw our arguments from when the government did take away our guns or freedom of speech? Look at England and Australia...both have long histories of gun ownership, but tradition didn't stand in the way of the bans, did it?

Well that is why the majority of Founding Father's won out and those rights were listed as they were considered important enough to protect. 9 and 10 just confirm why the Founding Fathers were so wise because these amendments say 1 - 8 are not the only important rights. And 9 makes clear that the rights are indeed the People's and not the Government's so they are not granted so to speak.

And it is not a tool to whip up the masses. If people would just understand that we grant the rights to the government, then we would not be in the mess we are in today. We need Statesman instead of politicians, but that is enough hijacking of this thread.

 

[dunkel]

Well that is why the majority of Founding Father's won out and those rights were listed as they were considered important enough to protect. 9 and 10 just confirm why the Founding Fathers were so wise because these amendments say 1 - 8 are not the only important rights. And 9 makes clear that the rights are indeed the People's and not the Government's so they are not granted so to speak.

In theory, yes. In practice...not so much.

And it is not a tool to whip up the masses.

Yes it is. The argument itself means nothing. Does nothing. Saying that the Constitution protects the rights, it doesn't grant them doesn't stop the government from coming in and taking our guns. It does, however, help motivate some people to vote the right way or whatever.

If people would just understand that we grant the rights to the government, then we would not be in the mess we are in today. We need Statesman instead of politicians, but that is enough hijacking of this thread.

Well, I'm sure we'd have some other mess, but yes, in theory, I agree with you.