Skip to main content

View Diary: Guns Are Property, Not Liberty (114 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But the text of the two Amendments (6+ / 0-)

    is different. The First Amendment does not provide for a "Right of the People to Keep and Bear" any particular thing, and the Second Amendment does not contain language indicating that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom" to -do- any particular thing.

    The First Amendment protects the right to speak, not to own a microphone. The Second Amendment protects the right to own guns, not to shoot people.

    The First and Second Amendments are both separate and different; by their respective terms, they protect different rights in different ways.

    •  Nonetheless (5+ / 0-)

      The 1st provides for freedom of the press, but does not give away printing presses. The old saying "freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns one" is applicable. Similarly, one cannot keep and bear arms unless one owns (or at least possesses) them, bringing both rights into a space where "consumer goods" are required for either of them.

      Yes, there is a difference between "congress shall make no law" (1st) and "shall not be infringed" (2nd), but clearly we do have laws that abridge on the 1st (you cannot just open up a TV station and start transmitting).

      Looking at the judicial reasoning behind why the 1st is not being technically "abridged" might provide insights about the 2nd not being technically "infringed".

      •  The issue is not whether (4+ / 0-)

        "'consumer goods' are required for either of them." The issue is whether the "right" which the Amendment establishes or protects is the acquisition, possession and/or ownership of consumer goods, by, in and of itself, period, full stop, or something that only incidentally requires or involves the acquisition, possession or ownership of consumer goods that one might want or need to use to do the protected thing.

        By their respective terms, the First Amendment does the latter, and the Second Amendment does the former.

        Having the right to do some particular thing (a liberty interest) does not include, create or necessitate the existence of a right to own any of the products one might use in doing it (a property interest). Conversely, the right to own something does not include, create or necessitate the right to do any particular thing with it.

        Also:

        Yes, there is a difference between "congress shall make no law" (1st) and "shall not be infringed" (2nd)
        Why did you change the terms of the discussion by including language that I did not cite, and excluding/ignoring the language that I did cite? What I wrote was:
        The First Amendment does not provide for a "Right of the People to Keep and Bear" any particular thing, and the Second Amendment does not contain language indicating that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom" to -do- any particular thing.
        That's very different from what you wrote, and from the language that you cited, which makes a completely different argument. Whether that argument with respect to the language you cited is valid or not is not the point; you moved the goalposts and deliberately changed the terms of the discussion. Why?
        •  Not my intent (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Catte Nappe, FrankRose

          I'm not trying to argue with you or argue for or against a particular point of view, I'm merely trying to look at the similarities between the two to see if they give any insight on each other.  Both are rights granted to "the people", both have language about government not interfering in them, both in practice do have government interference in them, and both (a free press in the case of the 1st) often necessitate the possession of specialized manufactured goods that the individual must spend their own money on. You can brandish a pointed stick and be charged with "armed" robbery, so clearly the definition of "arms" has as much of a complexity/cost spectrum as "speech" does.

          Since what I thought were reasonable questions applied to a diary about a thought experiment and property rights are not getting me any insight on the issue nor seem likely to I'll just bow out now.

          •  But... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Miggles
            [B]oth (a free press in the case of the 1st) often necessitate the possession of specialized manufactured goods that the individual must spend their own money on.
            ...the point is that one provides for a right whose exercise may "often necessitate the possession of specialized manufactured goods that the individual must spend their own money on," the other does not. "Possession of specialized manufactured goods" is the Second Amendment right, not the instrument thereof.

            Civil rights and property rights are not the same. Liberty interests do not include, create or necessitate concomitant property interests, and vice-versa.

            Since what I thought were reasonable questions applied to a diary about a thought experiment and property rights are not getting me any insight on the issue nor seem likely to I'll just bow out now.
            There is not a single question anywhere in any of your responses. Every sentence you've written here is an affirmative statement, and all but one are unqualified.

            I'm not trying to be oppositional either, and if you have actual questions I'll be glad to address them. But when you make unqualified affirmative statements that aren't quite right, that miss or distort the point, that leave out or ignore important factors, that indicate an incomplete or inaccurate understanding of the diary or the underlying issues, that are inconsistent or that change the terms of the discussion, you have to expect that it will be pointed out and explained.

            It's not wrong to not understand something, but it seems to me you're "not getting any insight" because you're looking for validation, not insight. If that's the case I'm sorry to disappoint you.

      •  With respect to the Second Amendment and (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Silvia Nightshade, FutureNow, Miggles

        the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, to say that "consumer goods are required for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms" is redundant, because Arms are consumer goods. What you're saying, basically, is that you have to own consumer goods in order to own consumer goods.

        Otherwise, the ownership of guns is "required for" what, exactly? What is the "right" that the ownership of guns enables you to exercise? And where in the Second Amendment can that right be found?

    •  The second amendment does not protect the right (0+ / 0-)

      to own guns.  That was one of your questions, wasn't it?  No other right enumerated in the Constitution is interpreted as a right to own the property you'd require to exercise the granted right.  Why do we interpret the second amendment, then, as granting that?

      That's one more thing to add to my long list of small problems. --my son, age 10

      by concernedamerican on Fri May 03, 2013 at 02:33:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site