doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Zumbo's comments

[quote=JM
John Locke was the one of the most influential English philosophers. His writings on "natural rights" were a major influence on the Founding Fathers.

"Natural rights are universal rights that are seen as inherent in the nature of people and not contingent on human actions or beliefs."[/quote]

JM - This quote from Locke does reflect a source for the thinking of important individuals among the Founding Fathers. But it doesn't answer the question Jack M. and I both asked. Although this idea of natural rights is associated with an Age of Enlightenment, I think it has lots in common with the later Romantics - ecstasy excepted - and doesn't stand up to a clear-eyed look at human behavior and history.

Scratch a nativist and you always find a guy who has arrived but he can't remember where from.

jack

My point is that major legislation doesn't happen overnight, or even in a month or two as you seem to imagine was the case with the GCA '68.

No, I'm pointing out that the GCA '68 evolved out of a host of gun control bills that had been written, debated, revised, argued and rejected over a period of 7 years, growing out of the JFK and subsequent assassinations. Dodd was deeply involved in crafting gun control legislation throughout that period. Most of the language that wound up in the GCA had been reviewed repeatedly. GCA was the culmination of a seven year process, not a last minute inspiration.

The notion that, after 7 years, Dodd suddenly recalled his old copy of the Nazi law, sent it off for translation and then swept the GCA board clean with a "near verbatim copy" is naive beyond belief!

Pretty cute - you inserted [question about Dingle] when in fact the question you had previously insisted that I answer was about the Dodd letter - and I answered that question. If you want to play 'bait and switch,' there's no way to have a rational discussion with you.

I can't explain why Rep. Dingell compared the GCA'68 to NWL'38 because I can't get into his brain. Politicians say a lot of dumb things - and that was certainly one of them.

So if GCA '68 is a "near verbatim copy" of the NWL, it must also ban Jews from manufacturing firearms and ammunition. Maybe I missed that part? The fact is that Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and almost every other nation in the world requires a license for those who want to manufacture firearms and ammunition. Does that make them all "near verbatim" copies of Nazi law?

I have also scanned GCA '68 for the "near verbatim" Nazi requirements for national weapons acquisition permits for handguns [Waffenerwerbschein] and national carry permits [Waffenschein], exemptions for government and party members, and - oddly enough - the exemption of licensed hunters from the Waffenerwerbschein requirement, and the ban on hollow-point .22 rimfire ammo. I have also been unable to find, in GCA '68, any "near verbatim copy" of the Nazi law giving local police discretion on ownership of firearms, swords or knives. Maybe my copy is incomplete somehow?

The GCA '68 is primarily focused on firearm imports and manufacturing, transfers and mail-order and interstate sales and shipment. It imposes NO national permit requirements for individual firearm acquisition or for carrying firearms.

Calling the GCA '68 a "near verbatim copy" of the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 is absolute fantasy. But if you're naive enough to believe it, JM, and want to keep waving that scary swastika, reality won't convince you otherwise. I see no point in continuing this conversation with you.

What a great line! This has the ring of a something Twain might have said, drives me to use a !

Wow. I had no idea so many utilitarians here.

In response to the question put to me, you can read Locke. You can also some of the early philosophers. Thomas Paine in " The Rights of Man" describes "natural rights". But Paine is also a bit tenditious. For us, why not start a bit closer to home?

I suggest that you look at Jefferson in his reasonably famous work, in which he appeals to an understanding of "natural rights, which he refers to as " Inalienable Rights". I am of course referring to the Declaration of Independence. You have read it perhaps?

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Or did ya'll just not have 8th grade Civics up there in Yankee Land?

On a broader front, though, I think a working definition of natural right is one which requires no positive action by another.

My right of free speech exists in a state of nature, and requires no positive action by anyone, and i need command no action by anyone else. My right to bear arms, same thing. It just "is". Men had the right and ability to acquire and bear arms absent any social interaction of any sort. And it flows directly from the "Right to Life" - as my "right to Life" is absolutely meaningless if I do not have an effective means to defend my life.

Right to trial by jury, on the other hand, is NOT a natural right, as it requires the co-option and cooperation of others in order for me to enjoy that right. That, by the way, doesnt mean it is not important, merely that it is not natural.

Regards

GKT

But our government can - and does - take away life (fairly often, in Texas) and liberty (our prisons are crowded) and the pursuit of happiness (narcotics possession).

Locke stated natural rights as 'life, liberty and property' - Jefferson changed that last to 'pursuit of happiness' to bring in folks who lacked property. But these were ideals, dreams, not realities of life. See Jeremy Bentham's 'Critique.'

There is not a country in the world today where the Constitution's enumerated 'unalienable rights' cannot be violated - including our own. Power inevitably trumps 'natural rights.'

John Locke is one of my all-time favorite philosophers, but, must likey there was never a time of no government as he imagined. Reason being is that the fundamental government has always been family. There never was a time when there never was a Father or Mother that did not had control over their children. Families grew into larger social units such as clans where there was a cheiftan, or "Big Daddy" in charge. So, in that sense, there never was a time when men just ran free with no control. One thing that GOD DID give to us as a natural right is FREE AGENCY. We all have the right to choose good, or evil. Our modern bill of rights is a extension of this "Natural Right".

Let me ask you this. Who does the Bill Of Rights protect, the magority, or the minority? The answer is the the Minority. In a representative republic, majority rules. It needs no protection because it always gets it's way. the minority always loses because it has no popular support. James Madison and SOME of the founders believed there were some rights that the majority should never be allowed to take away. Therefore they demanded a Bill Of Rights be ammended to the Constitution to protect the Individual from the wims and fancy of the Majority. The Bill Of Rights is there to gurantee that people can exercise their own will and beliefs.

Hope this helps. LOCKE AND LOAD:)

IM is right in saying that 'free agency' is a natural right. It is the only natural right. If a man were alone in the world, free agency gives him the right to take what he wants and do as he wishes.

As soon as a man is joined by another person, his free agency begins to bump up against the other's. Limits to free agency become necessary in any social relationship - family, neighborhood, clan, nation. That's why anarchy fails.

So, you see, it's really all Eve's fault.

Adam and Eve lived in a perfect garden. They didn't know good because there was no evil to contrast it against. It's a bad thing to be cut off from God. But through Jesus Christ we can once again come into God's presence. If Adam and Eve had not transgressed we would not be able to choose good, or evil. Death would not have entered into the world. There would be no Hunting because there would be no death, therefore there would be no shotguns. A VERY bad thing.

You don't think Neanderthal man would've gotten around to inventing a shotgun.