Posted on 12/11/2009 5:33:11 AM PST by Locomotive Breath
The USSC has not Stated that the Second Amendment applies to the state, only to DC (which is not a state by fed)
I would certainly agree if this involved a natural right. However, I am not sure that there is a natural right to hold a political office in the same way that there is a natural right, say, to marry whoever you want or to own property. I'll think on it more though--you've given me something to ponder.
good find..thanks for that
Granting your argument, that would mena that the people of Oregon would always retain the right of self-defense against agression. However, outfitting with a particular weapon is not intrinsic to self-defense. Provided some reasonable weapon is freely available, other weapons could be regulated. Else we descend to the "why can't I own a nuclear tipped ICBM" argument.
However even beyond that, living in a society with any government at all necessarily entails some surrender of natural rights to the collective. Without this, the government would not have any powers. Today, for example, the Constitution regulates the formation of private armies used in overseas adventures. At the time of the Vikings or the Huns, the people of Europe were under no such distraint.
The basis of the Bill of Rights is that the rights are not *granted* by the Constitution, but merely *recognized* by it.
The Bill of Rights and Constitution not only do not grant natural rights, they also DO NOT RECOGNIZE OR ENUMERATE natural rights. Rather, they prohibit the Congress from passing laws that infringe upon them.
No change to the Constitution itself will ever change our natural rights.
Natural rights cannot be changed by the Constitution, because they are a part of who human beings are. Humanity is not malleable to the law. However, the Constitution can be changed to determine how we exercise certain rights in society, or if we are giving the government the power to exercise them for us. If all just governing power derives from the collective body of the people and their natural rights, then the people have the right to determine how much power that shall be and how it shall interface with those rights retained by the people individually. Without the ability to surrender some natural rights into government power, we could not have eminent domain laws, bankruptcy courts, an Army and Navy, etc.
The American situation is further complicated via Federalism, whereby Americans have granted the Federal government certain powers, and the State governments certain other powers, retaining to themselves various rights against the power of either one or the other or both of these levels of government.
There. Fixed it.
Read the decision from 1961. That would be 48 years ago. Never overturned or reversed. Some whim. You lose. And are sore about it.
However even beyond that, living in a society with any government at all necessarily entails some surrender of natural rights to the collective.
A natural right cannot be abrogated. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
Please read Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Thomas Payne, etc. Certain rights are unalienable, meaning they cannot be taken by any society, vote, dictator, etc. They are inherently present for each individual because they are an individual.
If all just governing power derives from the collective body of the people and their natural rights, then the people have the right to determine how much power that shall be and how it shall interface with those rights retained by the people individually. Without the ability to surrender some natural rights into government power, we could not have eminent domain laws, bankruptcy courts, an Army and Navy, etc.
We can only surrender individual rights as individuals. The "collective," as you put it, does not have the legitimate power to do so. I could go on and on discussing this, but I suggest you start by reading Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Thomas Payne.
Individual Americans did not vote for the Constitution. Is it therefore illegitimate? How did it end up conferring various powers upon the US Government that are obviously rights that would otherwise belong to individuals (self defense, right of security in property, etc.)
You are being overly exact here. If the rights are unalienable in the sense you seem to be giving them, there could not be a legitimate death penalty (violates the right to life), there could not be prisons or a military draft (violates the right to liberty and freedom of action), and there could not be eminent domain and taxation (violates the right to securty in holding of property).
Certain rights are unalienable, meaning they cannot be taken by any society, vote, dictator, etc. They are inherently present for each individual because they are an individual.
Doesn't a jury vote to take aaway a man's right to life by giving him the death penalty? Doesn't Congress vote to take a man's property when they condemn it for a military base?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.