Banner question

[JT]

<rant> Is it just me being all a-r, as usual?

"Carolina Firearms Forum proudly stands with our fellow 2A supporters in Virginia facing opposition to their Constitutional right to legally bear arms."

There's no such thing as a "Constitutional right". There are pre-existing rights guaranteed in the Constitution; those may be called "God-given" / "natural" / "individual" / "whatever adjective you want to use that offends the fewest people" rights, but they were not granted by the government.

Okay, thanks for letting me vent. </rant>

 

[Spartan]

Constitutionally protected?

 

[JT]

Constitutionally protected?

Works for me!

 

[Vyntage]

The right to keep and bear arms is natural, civil, and constitutionally-protected.

 

[JT]

The right to keep and bear arms is natural, civil, and constitutionally-protected.

I'll give you two out of three. But I assert that the right to protect one's life and the lives of others is not "civil" rights, which are - by definition - rights granted by governments under civil law.

 

[Vyntage]

I'll give you two out of three. But I assert that the right to protect one's life and the lives of others is not "civil" rights, which are - by definition - rights granted by governments under civil law.

The first three lines of the wikipedia article:

"Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals' freedom from infringement by governments, social organizations, and private individuals. They ensure one's entitlement to participate in the civil and political life of the society and state without discrimination or repression.

Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples' physical and mental integrity, life, and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as race, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, color, age, political affiliation, ethnicity, religion, and disability;[1][2][3] and individual rights such as privacy and the freedom of thought, speech, religion, press, assembly, and movement."

I'd call the right to keep and bear arms a civil right.

 

[JT]

The first three lines of the wikipedia article:

"Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals' freedom from infringement by governments, social organizations, and private individuals. They ensure one's entitlement to participate in the civil and political life of the society and state without discrimination or repression.

Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples' physical and mental integrity, life, and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as race, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, color, age, political affiliation, ethnicity, religion, and disability;[1][2][3] and individual rights such as privacy and the freedom of thought, speech, religion, press, assembly, and movement."

I'd call the right to keep and bear arms a civil right.

And I would disagree with your interpretation of the Wikipedia article.

 

[Vyntage]

I think you are confusing "legal rights" with "civil rights".

 

[KnotRight]

I loved the Sheriff that went on national TV and said if this stands, he is going to deputize all citizen in his county that has and want to carry a gun.

 

[JT]

I think you are confusing "legal rights" with "civil rights".

I am not. I think the first sentence of the Wiki is misleading. If you go to any law page you'll find civil rights are both granted by and defended by government.

And I assert that the right to self-defense is neither legal nor civil.

 

[Vyntage]

Honest question - how many times in your life have you read an article that stated something along the lines of "the new law passed violates citizens' civil rights"?

 

[JT]

I loved the Sheriff that went on national TV and said if this stands, he is going to deputize all citizen in his county that has and want to carry a gun.

As far as I'm concerned, that is the only action that would prove a sheriff's commitment to the cause - to establish a county militia under a clear charter to protect and defend the citizens' right to self-defense against the infrongements of government.

 

[JT]

Honest question - how many times in your life have you read an article that stated something along the lines of "the new law passed violates citizen's civil rights"?

Often enough. Civil rights change with the political winds, for sure. And governments abuse them at will. The right to vote is a great example.

 

[Vyntage]

After googling it a bit, I have seen "civil rights" used to describe both social rights and legal rights, and those are two different things. I think you are in the camp that defines it as a legal right and I am in the camp that defines it as a social right.

So, we are arguing semantics but are probably on the same page philisophically. I absolutely believe the right to keep and bear arms is a social as well as a natural right.

 

[Burt Gummer]

Want us to change the banner for you?

 

[JT]

After googling it a bit, I have seen "civil rights" used to describe both social rights and legal rights, and those are two different things. I think you are in the camp that defines it as a legal right and I am in the camp that defines it as a social right.

So, we are arguing semantics but are probably on the same page philisophically. I absolutely believe the right to keep and bear arms is a social as well as a natural right.

Keep in mind that a large part of the semantic games played around the concept of "rights" is deliberate and malicious. Take, for example, "human rights", which persist in trying to incorporate unalienable rights with the socio-economic "rights" that are created and administered by man's government.

I am in the camp that defines the terms civil, social, legal, economic, and human rights, as man-made, government-administered "rights" that do not exist outside that construct. YMMV.

 

[Vyntage]

Often enough. Civil rights change with the political winds, for sure. And governments abuse them at will. The right to vote is a great example.

And my point to that question is: if civil rights are merely rights granted by law, and the law takes a right away, then it is no longer a civil right. Therefore, under this definition, you can't violate someone's civil rights with a law - you can only change their civil rights.

But again, it all hinges on how you define a civil right so we're just arguing semantics.

 

[JT]

Want us to change the banner for you?

That's not my call, brother. I just had a rant moment on a topic that's been a thorn in my side for over sixty years. And now, I've gone down the rabbit hole again in the thread.

 

[Vyntage]

Keep in mind that a large part of the semantic games played around the concept of "rights" is deliberate and malicious. Take, for example, "human rights", which persist in trying to incorporate unalienable rights with the socio-economic "rights" that are created and administered by man's government.

I am in the camp that defines the terms civil, social, legal, economic, and human rights, as man-made, government-administered "rights" that do not exist outside that construct. YMMV.

I disagree that it is malicious; it is mankind working to understand and define one small part of the nature of the universe.

I would say that all creatures have a right to self defense. That is the natural rights part.

Mankind has created civilization, and the ability to manufacture guns that can be used for self defense. That is the social rights part (and you could write a thesis on the details of that part alone).

The consitution then attempted to protect those rights. That of course is the constitutionally-protected part.

 

[JT]

And my point to that question is: if civil rights are merely rights granted by law, and the law takes a right away, then it is no longer a civil right. Therefore you can't violate someone's civil rights with a law - you can only change their civil rights.

But again, it all hinges on how you define a civil right so we're just arguing semantics.

Actually I agree that what you said in the first paragraph above is exactly correct. And yes, the issue we're discussing is a semantic issue; as to the definition of civil right, I rely on the folks who created it to tell me what it is.

 

[Vyntage]

Actually I agree that what you said in the first paragraph above is exactly correct. And yes, the issue we're discussing is a semantic issue; as to the definition of civil right, I rely on the folks who created it to tell me what it is.

Hmm ... who do you think created the term "civil right"?

edit - sorry, that question might come across as obtuse and I do not mean it to be. The concept of civil rights has been discussed (and written about) for thousands of years.

 

[JT]

Hmm ... who do you think created the term "civil right"?

Someone who believed that he had the authority to control others.

 

[B00ger]

Personally, I don't like the black background. I think it aligns too much with the "Black rifle bad"..."Why does it look so threatening! What are you gun people doing!"...I think we should go more for like an off white, maybe an egg shell or something.

 

[JT]

Personally, I don't like the black background. I think it aligns too much with the "Black rifle bad"..."Why does it look so threatening! What are you gun people doing!"...I think we should go more for like an off white, maybe an egg shell or something.

Robin's egg blue sounds nice.

 

[JT]