Kolbe en banc decision

[mcbruzdzinski]

Sky Woodward was spoke on the state of 2A in MD and in the US at yesterday's Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association meeting. A great Q&A followed her talk. some of which touched on Kolbe.

 

[MULE-JK]

You guys are re-arguing Hobbes, Locke and Bentham: do rights come from God, government or are they inherent in man’s nature? Let me know when you reach a consensus :

I should have probably responded to both in the same post, but my initial reaction was to the reply.

The intelectual argument doesn't matter when it's time to exercise your rights.

 

[fred333]

I get a good chuckle when people think that the 2nd Amendment, or any other Amendment for that matter, gives them an unalienable right or God given right.

Ordinarily, I wouldn't challenge you on legal grounds, but, here, I feel compelled to ask your interpretation of the following phrase:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident....that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...."​

Does society grant these rights; or are the people born with certain inherent [non-transferable] rights that exist apart from the fickle whims of society?

 

[Ranchero50]

Does society grant these rights; or are the people born with certain inherent [non-transferable] rights that exist apart from the fickle whims of society?

You should know better... The answer obviously is that society determines your rights. Laws are based on what is and isn't socially acceptable behavior. That's why it's so vital to live in a society that grants the freedoms you love and cherish and why the 2a battle is so important.

 

[kcbrown]

You should know better... The answer obviously is that society determines your rights. Laws are based on what is and isn't socially acceptable behavior. That's why it's so vital to live in a society that grants the freedoms you love and cherish and why the 2a battle is so important.

So ... They're not rights then after all.

Or perhaps you want to explain the difference between a right and an ordinary liberty.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[44man]

Ordinarily, I wouldn't challenge you on legal grounds, but, here, I feel compelled to ask your interpretation of the following phrase:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident....that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...."​

Does society grant these rights; or are the people born with certain inherent [non-transferable] rights that exist apart from the fickle whims of society?

Either one believes in the constitution or not.

All those who believe it’s a living document are full of shyte. Of coarse , given the chance and the time the left could indoctrinated enough people to believe that our rights are negotiable and then try and take them away from us, and to them I say from my cold dead fingers.......

 

[pcfixer]

You should know better... The answer obviously is that society determines your rights. Laws are based on what is and isn't socially acceptable behavior. That's why it's so vital to live in a society that grants the freedoms you love and cherish and why the 2a battle is so important.

Sir: Please go back in this thread and read post #427. I posted October 21st.

 

[pcfixer]

Either one believes in the constitution or not.

All those who believe it’s a living document are full of shyte. Of coarse , given the chance and the time the left could indoctrinated enough people to believe that our rights are negotiable and then try and take them away from us, and to them I say from my cold dead fingers.......

Do a search on Sir William Blackstone and John Locke (individual rights are absoulute).

 

[44man]

Do a search on Sir William Blackstone and John Locke (individual rights are absoulute).

I am familiar with both and I truly believe our rights are absolute

My point was some with soft minds don’t think that and still others will always be attacking the constitution and our rights.

 

[pcfixer]

I am familiar with both and I truly believe our rights are absolute

My point was some with soft minds don’t think that and still others will always be attacking the constitution and our rights.

Amen brother!

 

[shacklefordbanks]

Kolbe's reply brief is available. Distributed for conference of 11/9/2017.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/17-127-rb.pdf

"Something has gone awry when a court adopts a test for determining the scope of the Second Amendment that would have found muskets unprotected at the founding."

 

[TheBert]

Again I will try to keep it simple. Bear: to bring forth. To use the most limiting definition of bear(carry) doesn't work. I'll use one of your examples, but it works for any weapon you can't carry: A ship during the times the Framers lived. If the owners were not able to bear that ship during peace time it would rot, it also requires practice to use and train new crew and operators. It would also have been used to generate income. A ship at rest much like today is just a money pit in the water.

I do not believe the Framers had any intention of limitations when the amendment was written. I'm reading the amendment, I can understand what it says. I don't need to get into their minds and form an OPINION of what they were trying to say. It is written.

The problem is people can't fathom the thought of any citizen having the types of weapons you mention. There are unstable and immoral people and the thought terifies the average person, so they accept that politicians tear away at the 2nd and even support them in doing so. The problem is politicians are not doing it to protect anyone. They are doing it for their own gain, whatever that may be.

We the people have accepted that our neighbor shouldn't have an ICBM. We have given up that right and by default let the Federal Government have control of such weapons. It does not mean we do not still have that right. The power is always to be with the people, not the Government. The Government's powers are limited, not the people's.

The US Army had a man portable nuclear weapon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Munition

 

[Mark75H]

The US Army had a man portable nuclear weapon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Munition

And Elon Musk privately owns ICBM's

 

[Ranchero50]

So ... They're not rights then after all.

Or perhaps you want to explain the difference between a right and an ordinary liberty.

Sir: Please go back in this thread and read post #427. I posted October 21st.

Not really hear to pick fights but I think you are both wrong. Re read my original post. The society you live in determines the laws and limitations that allow you to conduct yourself. The law grants you any 'right' regardless of how it's written. You can substitute 'freedom' for 'right'.

Society decides a dictatorship is how they wish to be governed, then the citizens 'rights' or 'freedoms' will be different vs. what we have in the US. We are only a couple generations of propaganda from being an image of North Korea.

Per the constitution being a living document, I'd like to think that it isn't but know enough that if society wants it changed then change it will. Thumping your chest and speaking in absolutes serves no purpose if your voice isn't in the majority.

Hopefully we can get back to Kolbe now.

 

[kcbrown]

Not really hear to pick fights but I think you are both wrong. Re read my original post. The society you live in determines the laws and limitations that allow you to conduct yourself. The law grants you any 'right' regardless of how it's written. You can substitute 'freedom' for 'right'.

If you can substitute "freedom" (or "liberty") for "right" unconditionally, then there is no difference between a liberty and a right.

Congratulations, you have just wiped the very notion of a right out of existence.


Either a right is a different animal from a garden variety liberty, or it's not. Which is it?


In order to speed the conversation along, I'll tell you the difference between a garden variety liberty and a right. A right is something that cannot legitimately be infringed even if that is what the majority desires. To insist otherwise is to insist that we are legitimately all chattel of whatever society we find ourselves in, and that even the smallest whims of society are valid reason to see even the most sacrosanct rights extinguished.

Legitimacy, most especially as regards fundamental human rights, is the only thing that differentiates those rights from other liberties. Other liberties may legitimately be extinguished. Rights may not. Yes, they may be extinguished anyway (e.g., in the dictatorships you speak of), but such extinction is not legitimate, all claims to the contrary notwithstanding.

Again, to insist otherwise is to insist upon your status as a slave, a being that is worth only what the society around you deigns to grant to you, a being whose sense of self-worth is irrelevant. For it is from the value of individuals, and especially their self-value, that rights flow, and from which the value of liberty arises.

 

[Elliotte]

Kolbe's reply brief is available. Distributed for conference of 11/9/2017.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/17-127-rb.pdf

"Something has gone awry when a court adopts a test for determining the scope of the Second Amendment that would have found muskets unprotected at the founding."

I find it a bit interesting that they didn't even mention Miller since Miller basically says "if it's not used by the military it's outside the core of the 2A". I get that Miller was a bad ruling and bad precedent that we want to get rid of if possible, but why not throw it in the mix as a direct counter to the FSA and the 4th's ruling?

 

[Ranchero50]

Either a right is a different animal from a garden variety liberty, or it's not. Which is it?

I've stated it perfectly well several times. Pity you're missing the whole point of my post...

 

[fabsroman]

Ordinarily, I wouldn't challenge you on legal grounds, but, here, I feel compelled to ask your interpretation of the following phrase:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident....that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...."​

Does society grant these rights; or are the people born with certain inherent [non-transferable] rights that exist apart from the fickle whims of society?

“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, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”

Let me see here. You are quoting the Declaration of Independence. A document drafted by mere mortals.

Then, there is the Constitution of the United States of America, which is the law of the land. These "unalienable Rights" are set forth in a document. If it wasn't for the document, would they be rights at all? What rights does any person really have whatsoever, other than those given by the society they live in. Who even determines right and wrong, other than society itself. Some societies through time viewed human sacrifice as right. Some societies were built around war and only valued a man's ability to wage war.

Do citizens of China have these "unalienable" rights? I mean, they are unalienable, correct? And Christ, if they are God given, then every single person on this world should have all these rights.

End of the day, US citizens have the rights that society, via the Founders, decided to bestow upon us via the Constitution and then any additional rights that we have granted ourselves via Amendments to the Constitution. Then, there are limitations of those "absolute" rights that Congress sets forth in laws and that the Courts have decided to set forth via case rulings.

When a vast majority of people decide to abolish a right, it will be abolished. Make no mistake about that. None of these rights are God given or inalienable. We can wax philosophical about all of this, but the only rights people have within a society are those that society itself decides to grant the individuals within the society.

We can have a very long discussion about:

“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, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”

that was written by mortal men wherein they were declaring the nation's independence from England.

Are all men created equal? Science, via the study of DNA and genetics, has proven that some men are born smarter than others, some stronger than others, etc. (please view the term "men" as applicable to both women and men). So, are we all created equal, or is it that we are all created equal in the eyes of God?

Just because the King of the land says he shall never die, does not make it so. Just because some men in a document labeled the Declaration of Independence say that men have inalienable rights, does not make it so. Do we think that men throughout the world enjoy these inalienable rights? Would we enjoy these inalienable rights had we lost WWII and Germany and Japan were in charge?

If these rights are inalienable and/or God given, why do we need to fight so hard to retain them? Why can't I just build whatever machine guns I want? Why will I get locked up for a long time, deprived of my freedom, if I build a machine gun when I have this inalienable, God given, right? I want a machine gun so bad, but I cannot justify the risk of jail time should I build one myself and I cannot justify the current price of an M-16, both the result of society saying that machine guns are not part of the "inalienable" right.

 

[44man]

when men decide that their God given rights are mere privileges to be taken from them at the whim of society or the government then they no longer deserve their rights and its this kind of thinking that will bring down this great nations. school kids heads are filled with such drivel now but by the next generation these same thoughts will be the law of the land due to the pussification of America. I see it happening with the little snowflakes people raise now as kids, offended by every little thing. their parents aren't raising kids, their raising pussies. pansys for the left.

yes I believe in God given absolute rights. its the way I was raised and taught. the constitution is not a living document, its the law of the land.i also believe in Gods law first, mans law is secondary.

and yes I understand that rights as well as life can be taken from a man. I personally would give up my life before I give up my rights, but again that's how I was raised. right and wrong. black and white. no gray areas, no ********, just the truth and everything else is lies.

and hopefully I will be dead before this great nation sinks into the hands of these pusseies.

 

[kcbrown]

I've stated it perfectly well several times. Pity you're missing the whole point of my post...

Oh, I understand it just fine. I was making a rhetorical point more than anything else.

Your message is correct insofar as the practicalities are concerned. But societies are not built upon practicalities alone. There is almost always a philosophical foundation behind them, whether it is the "infallible king" philosophy, the rights philosophy of Locke and company, etc. This country has one, and what we argue for is the preservation of the societal expression of that philosophy, and direct opposition to transformation of society to one that has completely opposite philosophical underpinnings.

Regardless of that, my comments on legitimacy stand.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk