Gun control ... actual question

From Natural Rights to Concealed Carry

I'll sum up the Natural Rights theory that underpins the 2nd Amendment.

1. Natural Rights arise from the very nature of human beings. As such, they are universal (all humans have them by virtue of being human) and inalienable (since they do not arise from any specific law or culture, no specific law or culture can restrain them). The concept is very ancient and first appears in Zoroastrian texts (approximately 3500 BCE) and came to their first fruition under the stoics, perhaps best articulated by the Roman Cicero. From there, they became enshrined in Catholic Law, traveled down through history and into the Enlightenment, where they were eloquently articulated by John Locke

2. Locke identified three primary natural rights - life, liberty and property. This theory was one of the primary philosophical reasons/justifications for the America Revolution (that the King was depriving them of both their natural rights and their civil rights). Natural Rights are reflected in the Declaration of Independence and then further downstream in the Constitution.

3. The US Constitution is the framing document for the Federal Government. The enumeration included in the Bill of Rights was a restatement of this influential founding philosophy:
1st - Liberty (freedom of religion, freedom of press, speech, assembly, petition)
2nd - Life/Liberty
3rd through 10th - Liberty, Property

4. To break down the Natural Right protected in the 2nd, the right to life.
-You have a right to live your life. No government or culture gave this to you. It is inherent (and hence inalienable) because of your natural state.
-You have a right to defend your life (either from criminal acts or goverments acting as criminals (tyranny)
-"Arms", including guns, are instruments that can be effectively used to protect your life (and the lives of your family) from individual tyranny (crime) and collective tyranny (government).
-Without individual arms you (the individual) are at the mercy of armed individuals, either singularly or collectively
-If the government, through unjust laws, attempts to deprive you of your right to bear arms, the government is, in effect, restricting your natural right to self-defense, placing you at the mercy of others who are armed or simply bigger, faster, stronger, and meaner.
-Therefore the US Federal Government, formed by the Constitution (Civil Law), respectful of your natural rights, shall not (cannot under law) restrict your individual right to bear arms (buy, keep, store, and lawfully use).

That's pretty much the sum of it on a thumbnail. Though initially written to restrict the Federal government from infringing on Natural Rights, it was expanded to the States and other jurisdictions by the 14th Amendment.

Do you have the right to life (to live)?
Do you have the right to defend yourself?
Do you have the right to effectively defend yourself? (Keeping in mind that the the wild law of the world, as demonstrated in nature, is the strong take, the weak give (or get eaten), and they have no redress. Arms in general, guns in particular, level the field and make a 70 year old woman capable of stopping a 18 years old man and so protecting all three natural rights - life, liberty, and property.

*Edited to correct a typo/grammatical error
 
Last edited:
No, only men could own property. (Women WERE property) only property owners could vote which makes sense because why do people who do not own property get to vote on how other people who do own property use their property? As soon as you allow that you get what we now have which is the masses voting themselves the spoils of plundering others with the force of government.

Men recognized THEIR natural rights and seized them with force of arms and defended their natural rights. Do you imagine that women of those times did not also recognize THEIR natural rights, just as easilly?

Were they any less oppressed simply because they lacked the power to throw off their burden and exercise their natural rights the way you get to exercise yours today? No.

Did they have to hold a women's meeting to decide what natural rights of theirs were being denied? No.

Did they really not possess those natural rights until they were able to convince the menfolk to let them exercise them, or did they naturally exist?

Did slaves possess the same natural rights that white men had prior to their emancipation? Just because they couldn't exercise their natural rights didn't mean that their natural rights did not exist.

What natural rights in the society I live in are oppressed every single day in innumerable ways. Colonists, under King George had their natural rights oppressed everyday. for the most part they accepted that oppression as the price of living in society from which they in their view of their own enlightened self-interest we still able to live a happy and prosperous life. Until they got to the point where they were fed up with their infringement upon their natural rights and they rebelled.

Just because a given society doesn't honor or recognize natural rights doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Yet, at the time, lots of people argued that it was 'self evident' that women didn't have the right to vote.
 
I'll sum up the Natural Rights theory that underpins the 2nd Amendment.

1. Natural Rights arise from the very nature of human beings. As such, they are universal (all humans have them by virtue of being human) and inalienable (since they do not arise from any specific law or culture, no specific law or culture can restrain them). The concept is very ancient and first appears in Zoroastrian texts (approximately 3500 BCE) and came to their first fruition under the stoics, perhaps best articulated by the Roman Cicero. From there, they became enshrined in Catholic Law, traveled down through history and into the Enlightenment, where they were eloquently articulated by John Locke

2. Locke identified three primary natural rights - life, liberty and property. This theory was one of the primary philosophical reasons/justifications for the America Revolution (that the King was depriving them of both their natural rights and their civil rights). Natural Rights are reflected in the Declaration of Independence and then further downstream in the Constitution.

3. The US Constitution is the framing document for the Federal Government. The enumeration included in the Bill of Rights was a restatement of this influential founding philosophy:
1st - Liberty (freedom of religion, freedom of press, speech, assembly, petition)
2nd - Life/Liberty
3rd through 10th - Liberty, Property

4. To break down the Natural Right protected in the 2nd, the right to life.
-You have a right to live your life. No government or culture gave this to you. It is inherent (and hence inalienable) because of your natural state.
-You have a right to defend your life (either from criminal acts or goverments acting as criminals (tyranny)
-"Arms", including guns, are instruments that can be effectively used to protect your life (and the lives of your family) from individual tyranny (crime) and collective tyranny (government).
-Without individual arms you (the individual) are at the mercy of armed individuals, either singularly or collectively
-If the government, through unjust laws, attempts to deprive you of your right to bear arms, the government is, in effect, restricting your natural right to self-defense, placing you at the mercy of others who are armed or simply bigger, faster, stronger, and meaner.
-Therefore the US Federal Government, formed by the Constitution (Civil Law), respectful of your natural rights, shall not (cannot under law) restrict your individual right to bear arms (buy, keep, store, and lawfully use).

That's pretty much the sum of it on a thumbnail. Though initially written to restrict the Federal government from infringing on Natural Rights, it was expanded to the States and other jurisdictions by the 14th Amendment.

Do you have the right to life (to live)?
Do you have the right to defend yourself?
Do you have the right to effectively defend yourself? (Keeping in mind that the the wild law of the world, as demonstrated in nature, is the strong take, the weak give (or get eaten), and they have no redress. Arms in general, guns in particular, level the field and make a 70 year old woman capable of stopping a 18 years old man and so protecting all three natural rights - life, liberty, and property.

*Edited to correct a typo/grammatical error

So my problem here is I'm still not getting how these rights are identified - how did Locke know that these were natural rights. They aren't objective things - like, someone could find an apple on a tree and go 'ah, here's a thing'.

Here's an example of how these things aren't necessarily 'self evident'. Let's take property - in some indigenous cultures, the notion of 'owning' land was impossible. People saw themselves as guardians of the land. Different groups were able to grant people/groups the right to do particular things on/with the land, but you couldn't own the land. They didn't say 'oh, we're not going to apply the notion of ownership to land, just other stuff' - it was just self evident that you couldn't own land, because it was part of the natural universe that is beyond the ownership of humanity.
When those lands were colonised, and treaties were drawn up, it seemed self-evident to the indigenous people that they weren't ceding ownership of the land, because that was impossible. What they were granting was the right to use the land for certain purposes. It seemed equally self evident to the European that they were taking ownership of the land, because land is a thing that someone owns, so the indigenous people were 'obviously' transferring ownership through the treaty.

So, I really don't think that things that are 'self evident' are really quite as self evident as one might think. What you've traced in the above is a notion of things that are 'self evident' through the development of a specific cultural trajectory. It's a long trajectory, so it's obviously fairly embedded, and it's pretty well thought-out, but it is specific.
 
Last edited:
So my problem here is I'm still not getting how these rights are identified - how did Locke know that these were natural rights. They aren't objective things - like, someone could find an apple on a tree and go 'ah, here's a thing'..

He didn't and it's not an objective thing because it's just a legal/political philosophical concept.


Congratulations on the good trolling and have a good un'!
 
Last edited:
Yet, at the time, lots of people argued that it was 'self evident' that women didn't have the right to vote.
Anything "self-evident" is probably wrong. It's evident that the sun rises and falls from horizon to flat horizon. It's evident that heavier objects like lead fall faster than lighter objects like wadded paper. It's evident that cats are smarter than dogs and men are smarter than women, or maybe vice-versa. It's evident that darker skin means lower intelligence and worse morals. Et fucking cetera.

The "self-evident" logical fallacy usually justifies bullshit.

As for 'rights' -- we have whatever rights the cops and courts allow us, no more, no less. We can argue all we want from our jail cells. How fun!
 
Last edited:
Anything "self-evident" is probably wrong. It's evident that the sun rises and falls from horizon to flat horizon. It's evident that heavier objects like lead fall faster than lighter objects like wadded paper. It's evident that cats are smarter than dogs and men are smarter than women, or maybe vice-versa. It's evident that darker skin means lower intelligence and worse morals. Et fucking cetera.

The "self-evident" logical fallacy usually justifies bullshit.

I sort of have the same feeling about 'natural'.
(But cats are smarter than dogs. Definitely.)
 
He didn't and it's not an objective thing because it's just a legal/political philosophical concept.


Congratulations on the good trolling and have a good un'!

No matter what is posted, she's always going to come back to the same point.

Once she decides what her "winning" point is she cannot be deterred.

This behavior is manifested on more than one topic.

:eek:

She is clearly of the opinion that there is no such thing as objective knowledge, that because we are humans, we only have subjective reasoning. Hers is the world of Plato's cave and she never accepted Aristotle. You see her whole way of thinking depends on proving that there is no need for a gun because there is no need for self-defense. She has never been attacked, so she cannot understand why Americans are willing to subject themselves to a gun culture. Government is self-defense. Everything else leads to violence.
 
What a crackpot.

Just got back from AZ where all law-abiding adult citizens can carry concealed without a permit. In 2010 they amended their carry laws to join those currently enforced in Alaska and Vermont. Apparently, Americans are still in charge in AZ,
 
Anything "self-evident" is probably wrong. It's evident that the sun rises and falls from horizon to flat horizon. It's evident that heavier objects like lead fall faster than lighter objects like wadded paper. It's evident that cats are smarter than dogs and men are smarter than women, or maybe vice-versa. It's evident that darker skin means lower intelligence and worse morals. Et fucking cetera.

The "self-evident" logical fallacy usually justifies bullshit.

As for 'rights' -- we have whatever rights the cops and courts allow us, no more, no less. We can argue all we want from our jail cells. How fun!

"Self evident" describes concepts apparent to thinking people, so like Kim's, your oxygen-starved intellect is going to struggle to understand them.
 
Just got back from AZ where all law-abiding adult citizens can carry concealed without a permit. In 2010 they amended their carry laws to join those currently enforced in Alaska and Vermont. Apparently, Americans are still in charge in AZ,

Who was in charge of Arizona in 2010?
 
"Self evident" describes concepts apparent to thinking people, so like Kim's, your oxygen-starved intellect is going to struggle to understand them.

^ Doesn't realize self-evidence is considered an ambiguous and problematic concept by people who actually think about these things for a living.
 
^ Doesn't realize self-evidence is considered an ambiguous and problematic concept by people who actually think about these things for a living.


Please move this thread to the Philosophy 101 Forum.

3-Minor-in-Philosophy.jpg
 
Just got back from AZ where all law-abiding adult citizens can carry concealed without a permit. In 2010 they amended their carry laws to join those currently enforced in Alaska and Vermont. Apparently, Americans are still in charge in AZ,

... and NH
 
^ Doesn't realize self-evidence is considered an ambiguous and problematic concept by people who actually think about these things for a living.

^^^

Grim testimony as to why people so engaged usually supplement their income sitting on the sidewalk with a pair of bongos and a coffee can.:rolleyes:
 
Back
Top