Alcohol vs. firearm: what makes a right fundamental

[MarsCydonia]

Drinking alcohol is not a fundamental right, and it should not even be compared to Freedom of Speech, religion, or the right to self defense.

Drinking alcohol vs. Owning a firearm: what makes a fundamental right.

Inspired by this statement from tuxbox, I have to ask: what makes a right fundamental?

For exemple, if I had to determine which right between drinking alcohol and owning a firearm was more "fundamental", a quick and not that all deep reflexion would be that it should be my right to ingest whatever I deem fit for myself more so than owning a weapon whose purpose by default is to inflict arm upon others.

But then, in both cases I accept that some restrictions may be applicable for a "greater good" such as alcohol access being restricted to minors or firearm access being restricted for certain type of firearms.

Full disclosure: I am Canadian and I do not know a single person who owns a handgun or any type of firearm with the objective of "self-defense" so the concept is somewhat alien to me as to why owning a firearm is seen as a "fundamental right" (I only know 1 firearm owner, a hunter who owns a pair of hunting rifles... and a bow).

Thoughts?

 

[Grumpy Santa]

Drinking alcohol predates modern civilization and even our own species. Other species imbibe in the wild thanks to naturally fermenting fruits.

On the other hand, firearms are descendant from our ancestors using rocks and sticks for self-defense. Self-defense is also completely natural, being common among other species.

Ergo, imo, to a degree they both count as fundamental rights. However! In our society the actions of one or a few can negatively impact many. As such, we regulate rights (not just these) for the benefit of society as a whole. Alcohol is regulated... drinking age, use while driving, public intoxication, etc. Firearms also necessarily must be regulated for the protection of the many from the negative impacts of a few.

A fundamental right does not mean unfettered, unregulated access to that right to the detriment of others. Limits are necessary and must be applied.

 

[tuxbox]

To my surprise, “Fundamental Rights” is actually a legal term, in which the rights are granted by the state. That is a lot different than “Natural Rights”, which is the term I should have used, since these are rights that we are born with, and the state cannot (but they do), or should not take away from the people. That being said, I’ve changed my mind on consuming alcohol. I now believe that it is a “Fundamental Right”, however, I’m not so certain that is a “Natural Right”.

I believe 100% that owning a firearm is a natural right. However, I also believe that right can and should be regulated within reason.

We have been using weapon since pre-recorded history and we will probably be using them hundreds of years from now. Ancient humans used weapons for hunting and for self-defense. Today is no different. We have a right to protect ourselves, our families, and our property, and a firearm is a tool (as Grumpy put it) that gives the person or persons using them an advantage, or at the very least levels the playing field.

 

[Visaki]

I wouldn't say that consuming alcohol or owning a firearm is a natural right. Just because both have long traditions don't make the natural rights. Right to self defense doesn't give an automatic right to own and carry firearms. This is of course my totally uninformed opinion and I haven't looked into the question of fundamental/natural rights at all, but I'd say that the most basic of rights are human rights (well, depending how you define them but still) and anything else is society adding to those.

That being said I do think that people should have the right to consume alcohol and own firearms, both within reason and some limitations. In Finland I think we have pretty good regulations on both, though some tuning would be nice. Stronger alcohol products you can only get from bar/restaurants or from Alko, the state monopoly store, and it's pretty hard to get a hand gun licence (and pretty much impossible to get a licence for a automatic weapon).

To enlarge the scope of the question a bit; Is consumption of any narcotic, not only alcohol, a fundamental / natural right? Or is there a case to be made that a state can regulate or ban different substances it decides is detrimental to the society?

Also, are there any absolute rights, as in rights that can not or should not be limited? I'd say no.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

As I noted elsewhere, every life-form has a natural right to preserve life-and-limb - this is normally done with what "weapons" it is born.

This does not necessitate using other objects as weapons - the vast majority of life-forms do not carry round objects as tools, never mind as weapons.

Certain species do use various objects as tools to acquire food, etc - and, sometimes, as weapons - but they don't carry these around with them.

Even though humans do - and have historically - carry objects as tools, and - on occasion - as weapons, does not mean that humans have a natural right to do so.

The natural right to preserve life-and-limb is limited to the proverbial fight-or-flight response - and, in the case of fighting, it is with the tools/weapons with which one is born (fangs/claws, teeth/nails, tail/wings,hands/feet/knees/elbows/head, etc).

In the early days of America when families headed west to colonise the land - or, rather, re-colonise it, as it was already occupied by Native Americans - people needed their rifles to hunt, and protect themselves from wild animals and other humans, most notably Native Americans.

What existed originally was the "law of the gun" - however, when enough settlers had gathered to form a community, and decided to have a mayor, judge, and law-man, the "law of the gun" was superceded by the "law of the community".

From this point onwards, the community decides whether icitizens can have weapons, and what type - if any.

Thus, the right to keep/bear arms - whether guns, knives, swords, nunchuks, shuriken, pointed sticks, etc - is purely a community-based decision, At the highest level - the nation-state - that community is called America (at least in America!).

The 2A came out of the war for independence from European colonial powers - it refers to the defence of the state (America) from foreign, and by definition, "tyrannical" government. [It does not speak to "personal" and/or "home defence".]

How do Americans prevent a domestic "tyrannical" government?

By using their democratic right to vote wisely.

People with extreme views have a "kill-or-be-killed" attitude - and, as a result, a tyrannical approach towards those who disagree with them: if they could press a button to rid themselves of the other side, they would.

This is why it's important to vote for moderates - those in the centre - because they tend to have a "live-and-let-live" attitude, and are willing to not only allow other views but are willing to work with others of all stripes.

As an aside, the term "sovereign citizen" is a non-starter.

You cannot use the term "citizen" without referring to a community, since being a member of a community is intrinsic to the term "citizen".

Those who claim to be sovereign citizens are attempting to remain a individual separate from a community - this is impossible as, no matter where you are, you are living within a community, whether local, county, state and/or nation.

Regarding alcohol, etc...

One may have a natural right to eat/imbibe whatever one wishes - and produce your own alcohol ("moonshine") to drink yourself - however, once you sell it, you are breaching laws regarding health and hygiene/safety on saleable products - not to mention avoiding taxes, which are both against the law.

Bear in mind that the purpose of government is public safety, which includes public health (which is why a public-funded health service is a inherently legal right for any community).

Where public safety (health) is likely to be impacted by an individual's actions, the government (community) has a legal right to limit and/or prohibit that activity.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[tuxbox]

​

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I trust that wasn't an attempt at a rebuttal to what I posted above, tuxbox, as it doesn't refute anything I said.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Grumpy Santa]

Greetings,

As I noted elsewhere, every life-form has a natural right to preserve life-and-limb - this is normally done with what "weapons" it is born.

This does not necessitate using other objects as weapons - the vast majority of life-forms do not carry round objects as tools, never mind as weapons.

Certain species do use various objects as tools to acquire food, etc - and, sometimes, as weapons - but they don't carry these around with them.

Even though humans do - and have historically - carry objects as tools, and - on occasion - as weapons, does not mean that humans have a natural right to do so.

The natural right to preserve life-and-limb is limited to the proverbial fight-or-flight response - and, in the case of fighting, it is with the tools/weapons with which one is born (fangs/claws, teeth/nails, tail/wings,hands/feet/knees/elbows/head, etc).

Allow me to both agree and disagree here. Well, I don't know if agreeing or disagreeing is the right term... bleh. I think there's one tool/weapon you're forgetting that all humans carry around with us, our brains. With our brains we have the ability to take objects we normally wouldn't carry around with us and use them as tools/weapons. To exclude the brain and our ability to use deliberately use objects from the environment is an oversight that can't be dismissed in my opinion. It's the reason we don't need tooth and nail, fang and claw, etc.

In the early days of America when families headed west to colonise the land - or, rather, re-colonise it, as it was already occupied by Native Americans - people needed their rifles to hunt, and protect themselves from wild animals and other humans, most notably Native Americans.

What existed originally was the "law of the gun" - however, when enough settlers had gathered to form a community, and decided to have a mayor, judge, and law-man, the "law of the gun" was superceded by the "law of the community".

From this point onwards, the community decides whether icitizens can have weapons, and what type - if any.

Agreed, which goes along with the "well-regulated" aspect that is necessary in our society.

Thus, the right to keep/bear arms - whether guns, knives, swords, nunchuks, shuriken, pointed sticks, etc - is purely a community-based decision, At the highest level - the nation-state - that community is called America (at least in America!).

The 2A came out of the war for independence from European colonial powers - it refers to the defence of the state (America) from foreign, and by definition, "tyrannical" government. [It does not speak to "personal" and/or "home defence".]

How do Americans prevent a domestic "tyrannical" government?

By using their democratic right to vote wisely.

Agreed again. The 2nd was meant to protect the state's rights to an organized, well-regulated militia, especially in a time where there was no national armed forces for protection. It's being used grossly out of context these days.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

As I noted elsewhere, every life-form has a natural right to preserve life-and-limb - this is normally done with what "weapons" it is born.

This does not necessitate using other objects as weapons - the vast majority of life-forms do not carry round objects as tools, never mind as weapons.

Certain species do use various objects as tools to acquire food, etc - and, sometimes, as weapons - but they don't carry these around with them.

Even though humans do - and have historically - carry objects as tools, and - on occasion - as weapons, does not mean that humans have a natural right to do so.

The natural right to preserve life-and-limb is limited to the proverbial fight-or-flight response - and, in the case of fighting, it is with the tools/weapons with which one is born (fangs/claws, teeth/nails, tail/wings,hands/feet/knees/elbows/head, etc).

Allow me to both agree and disagree here. Well, I don't know if agreeing or disagreeing is the right term... bleh. I think there's one tool/weapon you're forgetting that all humans carry around with us, our brains. With our brains we have the ability to take objects we normally wouldn't carry around with us and use them as tools/weapons. To exclude the brain and our ability to use deliberately use objects from the environment is an oversight that can't be dismissed in my opinion. It's the reason we don't need tooth and nail, fang and claw, etc.

Agreed, though I trust you're aware I was leading up the relevance to the 2A.

In the early days of America when families headed west to colonise the land - or, rather, re-colonise it, as it was already occupied by Native Americans - people needed their rifles to hunt, and protect themselves from wild animals and other humans, most notably Native Americans.

What existed originally was the "law of the gun" - however, when enough settlers had gathered to form a community, and decided to have a mayor, judge, and law-man, the "law of the gun" was superceded by the "law of the community".

From this point onwards, the community decides whether citizens can have weapons, and what type - if any.

Agreed, which goes along with the "well-regulated" aspect that is necessary in our society.

Thus, the right to keep/bear arms - whether guns, knives, swords, nunchuks, shuriken, pointed sticks, etc - is purely a community-based decision, At the highest level - the nation-state - that community is called America (at least in America!).

The 2A came out of the war for independence from European colonial powers - it refers to the defence of the state (America) from foreign, and by definition, "tyrannical" government. [It does not speak to "personal" and/or "home defence".]

How do Americans prevent a domestic "tyrannical" government?

By using their democratic right to vote wisely.

Agreed again. The 2nd was meant to protect the state's rights to an organized, well-regulated militia, especially in a time where there was no national armed forces for protection. It's being used grossly out of context these days.

I think I need to clarify what I was saying and its implications.

It was (and is) assumed that, in the event of a foreign invasion or an attempt by a foreign (including a former colonial) power to impose itself on the newly founded America, the people would keep weapons, and bear them in defence of America, either by supporting the modern US Armed Forces, or - should they be defeated - by fighting a guerilla war, much as the Maquis did in occupied France - or, indeed, as the colonists originally did to gain their independence.

In other words, keeping and bearing (approved) weapons to defend America is a given for every American citizen - it's just that the 2A doesn't speak to "personal" and/or "home defence". Thus, any attempt by any Tom, Dick, or Harry to cite the 2A as justification for wandering the streets with a weapon is completely unjustified because it's inapplicable.

As an aside, my opinion is based on Amar's books - The Bill of Rights and America's Constitution: A Biography- along with Halbrook's The Founders' Second Amendment, and Waldman's The Second Amendment.

I have yet to get/read Amar's other relevant books.

I disagree with Halbrook's - who writes from a right-wing perspective - portrayal of Anglo-Saxons as "fiercely independent", which gives the impression that individuals had rights outside of the community.

This is simply not the case.

An Anglo-Saxon only had rights as a member of a community - were (s)he to do anything that was interpreted as raising one's hand against the community, they were in danger of being declared outlaw; literally "outside the protection of the law (of the community)". If that happened, anyone could kill the outlaw in any way they saw fit - a man might be tortured to death, and no-one would raise a finger to protect him; a woman could be gang-raped and sodomized to death, and the women of the community would not raise an eyebrow - as far as they'd be concerned, she deserved everything she got for turning her back on the community. It should be noted that this attitude, and its consequences, are still seen in certain cultures - so-called "honour killings", and even the gang-rape of a Indian girl on a bus for being out late on her own, which caused an international outcry, and led to changes in the laws in India (and also perhaps Pakistan).

Were an Anglo Saxon to meet the Earl's retainers or the sheriff - the King's law-man - at the door of his hut with a drawn sword in challenge, he would be declared out-law. The retainers/sheriff represented the will of the earl/king, respectively - to challenge them was to raise one's hand against the law (of the community), and thus against the community.

It was as if a individual were saying that they don't need the community - at which point the community said, "Go off and live on your own in the woods then!" (bearing in mind that, in those days, the woods were seen as a dark and terrifying place). It's ironic that those declared outlaw for turning their back on their community formed their own communities in order to survive.

Contrast this with what happens in America today when police go to a house and are met with a home-owner bearing a weapon, and end up in shoot-outs due to the modern misinterpretation of the 2A.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[thenexttodie]

Inspired by this statement from tuxbox, I have to ask: what makes a right fundamental?

Atheists always have hard time with this one. What we call "fundamental rights" are just by products of being charged to love one another and to not force evil upon others.

If I were tuxbox I would have modified my statement to say that drinking alcohol to the point of drunkeness is not a fundamental right.

 

[MarsCydonia]

Inspired by this statement from tuxbox, I have to ask: what makes a right fundamental?

Atheists always have hard time with this one. What we call "fundamental rights" are just by products of being charged to love one another and to not force evil upon others.

If I were tuxbox I would have modified my statement to say that drinking alcohol to the point of drunkeness is not a fundamental right.

If you're theist, shouldn't you then fare better?

 

[thenexttodie]

If you're theist, shouldn't you then fare better?

Better than what? What are you talking about?

 

[MarsCydonia]

If you're theist, shouldn't you then fare better?

Better than what? What are you talking about?

Better than atheists whom you asserted had a "hard time with this one". So far, all of them fared better than you did.

 

[MarsCydonia]

Drinking alcohol predates modern civilization and even our own species. Other species imbibe in the wild thanks to naturally fermenting fruits.

On the other hand, firearms are descendant from our ancestors using rocks and sticks for self-defense. Self-defense is also completely natural, being common among other species.

Ergo, imo, to a degree they both count as fundamental rights.

I am not sure I would agree with what appears to be implied here. Namely that "if it's an old practice (drinking alcohol, using weapons for self-defense), it's a fundamental right.

There are a few exemple of "old practices" that are no longer considered rights and thus, not certainly not considered fundamental rights. So I don't think that "old practice" is a useful view of what makes a right fundamental.

However! In our society the actions of one or a few can negatively impact many. As such, we regulate rights (not just these) for the benefit of society as a whole. Alcohol is regulated... drinking age, use while driving, public intoxication, etc. Firearms also necessarily must be regulated for the protection of the many from the negative impacts of a few.

A fundamental right does not mean unfettered, unregulated access to that right to the detriment of others. Limits are necessary and must be applied.

I did not have any doubt that this would come up. Though I agree that "fundamental right" should not mean "unfettered and/or unregulated right", what limits should be applied is another, complicated line of discussion on the topic.

For exemple, I think that "how a right should be limited, restricted" has a cultural influence. Take firearm ownership for exemple, I think canadian society and american society have very different views on the topic. Within the Canada or even within the U.S. I think views on the topic would differ by province/state.

 

[MarsCydonia]

I believe 100% that owning a firearm is a natural right. However, I also believe that right can and should be regulated within reason.

But then the question simply changes to "What makes a right "natural"? Particularly since you consider owning a firearm a natural right but firearms are not exactly a long part of the planet's history, not even in mankind's history.

And as I mentionned to Grumpy, discussing how rights, wether fundamental or natural, are regulated, is another complicated line of discussion in this topic.

We have been using weapon since pre-recorded history and we will probably be using them hundreds of years from now. Ancient humans used weapons for hunting and for self-defense. Today is no different. We have a right to protect ourselves, our families, and our property, and a firearm is a tool (as Grumpy put it) that gives the person or persons using them an advantage, or at the very least levels the playing field.

Take this for exemple: "Firearms are "tools", we "have the right" to use them to protect ourselves".
By that standard, shouldn't everybody be allowed the very best tool available to them do defend themselves? Wouldn't that give a person the right to any "tool" they see as their best possible defense?

 

[Grumpy Santa]

I believe 100% that owning a firearm is a natural right. However, I also believe that right can and should be regulated within reason.

But then the question simply changes to "What makes a right "natural"? Particularly since you consider owning a firearm a natural right but firearms are not exactly a long part of the planet's history, not even in mankind's history.

And as I mentionned to Grumpy, discussing how rights, wether fundamental or natural, are regulated, is another complicated line of discussion in this topic.

We have been using weapon since pre-recorded history and we will probably be using them hundreds of years from now. Ancient humans used weapons for hunting and for self-defense. Today is no different. We have a right to protect ourselves, our families, and our property, and a firearm is a tool (as Grumpy put it) that gives the person or persons using them an advantage, or at the very least levels the playing field.

Take this for exemple: "Firearms are "tools", we "have the right" to use them to protect ourselves".
By that standard, shouldn't everybody be allowed the very best tool available to them do defend themselves? Wouldn't that give a person the right to any "tool" they see as their best possible defense?

This is indeed where it gets complicated. Should everyone have access to shoulder-mounted anti-aircraft missiles because some terrorists hijacked a plane once? OK, extreme example, but clearly the answer should be (in my opinion at least) no, and it directly ties back to the necessity of society to regulate rights whether or not they may be considered "fundamental". I don't think we can split the two ideas and still have them make sense. Besides, to be honest, I'm not even clear on what a "fundamental" right is compared to what should be basic human rights. Is marriage a fundamental right? Well, there are plenty in this country that would regulate it way WAY past what is necessary to protect or benefit society, at one point even denying it to two people who's skin tones weren't close enough.

Even what we tend to think of as "fundamental" rights aren't afforded to all people based on cultures. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can, in some cultures, be taken away if you pray to the wrong god (or none at all) for example. This would seem to imply that "fundamental rights" are subjective and wholly dependent on what the local culture decides they are.

 

[thenexttodie]

Better than atheists whom you asserted had a "hard time with this one". So far, all of them fared better than you did.

I don't see how. If by "better" you mean a higher level of trivial discussion then yes.

 

[thenexttodie]

This is indeed where it gets complicated. Should everyone have access to shoulder-mounted anti-aircraft missiles because some terrorists hijacked a plane once? OK, extreme example, but clearly the answer should be (in my opinion at least) no, and it directly ties back to the necessity of society to regulate rights whether or not they may be considered "fundamental"

It is a function of government to provide it's citizens a level of provide protection from crime, invasion, acts of war, and terrorism. The lesser of the amount of competence or ability for the government to so, the greater the amount of this responsibility falls on, or can at least be afforded to the individual.

Every person in the world has a right to carry a firearm is because no government can be expected to provide an armed guard to each of it's citizens. Unless you are like..insane, then yes it is your right to have the best tools available to you for self defense.

Many Atheists, Socialists, Communists, and idiots think that bribing men, with tons of money so that they hopefully not commit crimes negets the need for self defense. And then you get what they had in Germany last New Years Eve. 1000 women sexually molested, systematically by gangs of low lifes. Probably many of them molested right in front of their sons, husbands and fathers.

As far a shoulder mounted anti-aircraft missiles, I'm sure you would agree that a government could and should instruct civilians in the use of military grade equipment, if needed.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

This is indeed where it gets complicated. Should everyone have access to shoulder-mounted anti-aircraft missiles because some terrorists hijacked a plane once? OK, extreme example, but clearly the answer should be (in my opinion at least) no, and it directly ties back to the necessity of society to regulate rights whether or not they may be considered "fundamental"

It is a function of government to provide it's citizens a level of provide protection from crime, invasion, acts of war, and terrorism. The lesser of the amount of competence or ability for the government to so, the greater the amount of this responsibility falls on, or can at least be afforded to the individual.

The problem here is that you've made it completely subjective. A citizen could feel he's not protected enough as he worries about hordes of Mexican rapists crossing the border while he ignores the fact that he's completely safe as is.

[/quote]
Every person in the world has a right to carry a firearm is because no government can be expected to provide an armed guard to each of it's citizens. Unless you are like..insane, then yes it is your right to have the best tools available to you for self defense. [/quote]

False. Illegal in England, for example.

If it's your opinion that everyone should have the right to carry a firearm you should state it that way.

Many Atheists, Socialists, Communists, and idiots think that bribing men, with tons of money so that they hopefully not commit crimes negets the need for self defense. And then you get what they had in Germany last New Years Eve. 1000 women sexually molested, systematically by gangs of low lifes. Probably many of them molested right in front of their sons, husbands and fathers.

Well that's one hell of an emotionally charged word salad without any supporting evidence behind it. WTF you babbling on about?

As far a shoulder mounted anti-aircraft missiles, I'm sure you would agree that a government could and should instruct civilians in the use of military grade equipment, if needed.

Well, no. Definitely not. Besides, when would that ever be needed?

 

[Laurens]

What is meant by fundamental right? I might assert that it is my fundamental right to do what I like with my own body but if I stand on a street corner and light up a joint I can be arrested.

Where does that right exist other than as something I insist ought to be the case?