As many of us know, we in the U.S. are guaranteed certain Rights.

You hear alot of talk about "Rights", but very few know what this word really means.

Touch the skin on your arm or anywhere. In the same way that you are naturally embodied with that skin, the U.S. Constitution embodies human beings with certain basic rights.

The U.S. Constitution is the ultimate, end-all, be-all document for defining what it means to be American and what America is intended to represent.

If you are like me, you didn't pay perfect attention in 8th grade social studies class. So, I am going to take advantage of this slow basement section to remind all of us of our 27 basic, guaranteed rights and provide my own short commentary after.
_________________________

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


I've actually written a couple of drafts of this post, each time giving a long analysis of why the Second Amendment is still essential. This becomes very involved, so I'm just going to give you the bottom line, but even the bottom line is a bit involved.

In this world, a Society that gives prime emphasis to individual rights and property rights is constantly going to be under ideological attack. This is because other societies are more reluctant to develop such a model. In order for America's constitutional model to survive, individual rights and personal sovereignty have to be defended on an individual level. As I hope we have all learned, government can not and should not be trusted as a guarantor of personal sovereignty: this fact was very much at the forefront of The Founder's minds when they wrote The Second Amendment.

Much of this meaning has been lost due to the wording of the Second Amendment and its reference to militias, which is more a reflection of the time in which it was written. Nonetheless, the spirit of the Second Amendment is that private citizens should have the right to take up arms against those who would do harm to them and/or violate their sovereign Right to property. In a sense, because your Right to property was intended by the constitution to be a "Natural Right", an attack on your property probably wasn't viewed much differently than an attack on your body, at least by some of The Founders.

The other purpose of The Second Amendment was to give the right to individual citizens to collectively form militias and protect themselves against oppressive governments or outside invaders. America abandoned this idea a long time ago, and it probably really started to die off around the time of The Civil War. We have so entrusted government with the responsibility of defending our individual Rights for so long that today we'd qualify such thinking as the thinking of a domestic terrorist. In the 1990s, it seems that the idea of citizen militias went down with an ugly, destructive and tragic death rattle. The nineties brought many such events to a prominent forefront, e.g., , The incident at Ruby Ridge, The Siege at Waco, TX. and, as a result of both, The Oklahoma City Bombing (For compliicated reasons that I've partially discussed in other posts, it's my personal belief that these occurrences all clustered during this period as an indirect, network result of the end of The Cold War.)

For purposes of full disclosure, I don't own any guns. I've never been hunting in my life and have no intention of ever going. Once, some college buddies and I shot some tin cans of an abandoned car in the woods. To the best of my recollection, this was the only time in my life that I actually fired a gun. I personally dislike guns, but I don't confuse my personal dislike with the meaning and intent of The Second Amendment.

The ideas imbued in the Second Amendment are the same ideas that are imbued in individual freedom and compeititive free market capitalism: no one looks out for you better than you do and, by definition, no one will serve your self-interest better than you will. When a society is based on the idea that no one should be limited in their ability to achieve, the same society has to expect that no one will defend what they've earned better than the person who has earned it.

In the past year or two, I've come to find the Second Amendment issue quite fascinating. I could carry on for quite awhile, but the Second Amendment usually easily inspires discussion, so I'll stop here and let things take their course.

Winston,
You,and everyone else, may find the linked an interesting read.

I have excerpted bits from the first 10 or so pages.
Gary K.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletters/cl-13.pdf

Cato’s Letter #13
The Purpose and Limits of Government
by Roger Pilon

In a few brief lines, penned near the
start of our struggle for independence, the
Founders distilled their philosophy of government:
individual liberty, defined by rights to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, secured by a government instituted for that purpose with
powers grounded in the consent of the governed.

"That all Men are Created Equal"

The argument begins, substantively, with a
premise about moral equality — as defined
immediately thereafter by our inalienable rights
to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

By thus defining the sense in which we are all equal, the Founders made clear what should have been clear in any event, namely, that we are all equal only in the sense that we all have equal natural rights — that no one has rights superior to those of anyone else..........

But if the premise of equality was not
meant to imply any far-reaching egalitarianism,
neither was it meant to leave unchallenged those
hierarchical views — some in the natural law tradition— that have held that some people are
morally superior to others in ways that entail
legal consequences.

If we are all equal in the limited
but crucial sense that we all have equal natural
rights to chart our own courses by our own lights, free from the interference of others, then we cannot be compelled to conform to the morality of others, however “superior’’ the views of those others may be; the only proviso is that, as we chart our courses, we respect the equal rights in others to do the same.


"That they are Endowed by their Creator with
certain Inalienable Rights"

As we move from the Founders’ premise of
equality to its implications, we are challenged to reflect on the source of rights.

The central point the Founders sought to make here is crucial: we do not get our natural rights from government; we are born with those rights; indeed, whatever rights or powers government has, as the Declaration will shortly say, are given to it by us,
who must first have them to give.

The central issue here could not be more important: it is whether we are servants of government, beholden to it for our rights, or government is our servant,
beholden to us for its powers.

That issue would later manifest itself in the Constitution, in the form of the doctrine of enumerated powers— the idea that government’s powers are delegated by the people, who first have them to delegate; are enumerated in the document; and thus are limited by virtue of that delegation and enumeration.

But it is found here first, in the Declaration, in the fundamental idea of pre-existing rights, rights that pre-exist government — natural rights, which we have “by nature.” .........

"That among these are Life, Liberty, and the
Pursuit of Happiness"

.....Thus, we have objectivity in rights,
subjectivity in values, which is precisely what
one would expect in a regime of freedom.

Each of us is free to live by his own subjective standards,
provided he respects the equal freedom of
others. We may criticize the values of others, of course, but we may not impose our values on
them.

That distinction between rights and values,
implicit in the right to the pursuit of happiness, is the very foundation of a free society. For it entails a regime of rights that can be thought of as constituting a minimal framework within which each of us is free to live, charting his own course — not ordered by others but simply left alone..........

quote:

Originally posted by WinstonSmith:
Once, some college buddies and I shot some tin cans of an abandoned car in the woods. To the best of my recollection, this was the only time in my life that I actually fired a gun. I personally dislike guns...

Let me guess. You missed every time and they made fun of you. LOL

Actually, I was a better shot than both of them and one of them was ROTC. It's possible though that they made fun of me, for some other reason.

GKayser30, I read the link you provided and it's a very good essay regarding the philosophy of natural rights. Thanks.

Unfortunately, even this premise is now under ideological attack. Scroll down to the bottom of the Wikipedia entry and read the nonsensical reasoning under the heading "Contemporary Proponents".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_right

This message has been edited. Last edited by: WinstonSmith,

So then,...where does "Common sense" come in?
Is Common sense a value judgement alone?
It's clearly not a right, but there are certainly many (too many perhaps) that prefer to not make this particular judgement call for themselves at all,....ever.
The government apparently does such a good job for them, common sense is not required.

quote:

Originally posted by LightningBoy:
So then,...where does "Common sense" come in?
Is Common sense a value judgement alone?
It's clearly not a right, but there are certainly many (too many perhaps) that prefer to not make this particular judgement call for themselves at all,....ever.
The government apparently does such a good job for them, common sense is not required.

This is a great question. Thanks for asking it.

The problem with "common sense" is that it has no rules in terms of "common perception".

I don't think that America was founded around the idea of "what can make most happy". Rather, I think it was thought of systematically, and the question was "What system can endure to do the most good with the most freedom, the most prosperity, and the most justice?"

"Common Sense" changes defintions as paradigms change, and you can't build a holistic system around those ideas. People, even the vast majority of people, are largely unreliable, as we're re-learning for the millionth time with anti-smoking.

If you recognize certain rights as natural rights, and recognize property rights as natural rights, you create a diverse and dynamic system that constantly and perpetually prospers.

"Common sense" without clear guidelines, can be a dangerous concept. In fact, anti-smoking is to many "common sense". They've seen 50 anti-smoking TV commercials telling them so in the last 30 days, after all. They wonder how dumb we are to have missed them, and think themselves wiser than us.

Don't you understand? The TV said it and they saw it; now they're smarter and more informed and you're some random, miscreant ignoramus who missed what the TV said and everyone knows.

A system emphasizing individual freedom needs to be given regard over the circumstances for the convenience of popular rules.

I submit that 'Common Sense' does not even exist.

What is 'Sensible' varies too much for there to be commonality,for instance.

A family living on an income of $200,000/year might consider a diet to be sensible only if it is considered highly healthy.

A family living on $30,000/year might consider a diet to be sensible if it keeps away hunger pains.

For 'Common Sense' to be common, it must be shared by everyone.

Antis and Nannies tell us that we do not have 'Common Sense',only they do.

Thus;'Common Sense' is not common and does not exist.

Gary K.

quote:

Originally posted by gkayser30:
I submit that 'Common Sense' does not even exist.

What is 'Sensible' varies too much for there to be commonality,for instance.

A family living on an income of $200,000/year might consider a diet to be sensible only if it is considered highly healthy.

A family living on $30,000/year might consider a diet to be sensible if it keeps away hunger pains.

For 'Common Sense' to be common, it must be shared by everyone.

Antis and Nannies tell us that we do not have 'Common Sense',only they do.

Thus;'Common Sense' is not common and does not exist.

Gary K.

I agree.

For example, I think that multi-millionaire celebrities take up Leftist, activist causes because they have a completely skewed perception of reality.

These people probably became celebrities while still being quite young. They "broke through"; perhaps they went to an audition, did well, and were selected. From there they got an agent, and their career took off.

When you start making a million dollars a year in your early twenties and have people constantly throwing themselves at your feet, it's pretty easy to conclude that your adolescent notions of superiority are actually true and that the rest of the world is filled with a bunch of inferior, ignorant people who simply couldn't hold up. Since you're so superior, you have to help and guide them.

Meanwhile, if these people had to do your job for one day, they'd be befuddled, completely confused and lost.

Also, such people deal have to deal with a "fear of jealousy" which the rest of us live without a notion of, and it's a powerful psychological factor in their lives.

They feel compelled to give of themselves for causes because they want to show that "they care".

This is why, for example, Al Gore burns up more carbon every year than all of this put together, but still feels justified in lecturing everyone on the fairy tale of "Global Warming".

You see, such rules don't apply to him, or others like him. These rules only apply to the inferior types who have never attained his level of affluence. You've proven yourself inferior, and the "gifted ones" need to guide you and the rest of the world.

It's quite easy to be a "do-gooder" when you have the day off, every day, and make many millions of dollars for very few hours of actual labor.

This also plays into our current state of healthism.

Will Smith is in excellent physical condition, but Will Smith has all of the money, resources and time to devote to make himself look great. Meanwhile, you and I are at work. While we're stressing away at work, Will Smith is paying $350.00 an hour to a personal trainer, and thinks himself quite the spartan for his efforts.

Such people have no perspective, so they're likely to hold your beer gut in high contempt.

Meanwhile, none of these people will ever give up their mansions and limousines. Never. I say "Fine" and "Good for them", but I wish they'd shut the Hell up when it comes to telling the rest of us how to live, because they're deluded and clueless.

Somehow, though, our culture looks to them! Why on Earth would a mother and homemaker look to Oprah Winfrey for advice on anything?! It's completely back-asswards! Oprah doesn't have a clue! The people following her advice should be the ones giving the advice!

If we can re-define the notion of "common sense" into simple pragmatism, I think the one thing that we have to learn as a culture is to trust our own sensibilities, rather than external influences.

This brings us to the heart of something important, I think. If you hold a Master's Degree these days, it isn't just a sure sign of being educated, but a sure sign that you completely conform to externalities. Meanwhile, the opposite should be true; a higher degree of education should make you more self-reliant on an individual level.

"Common Sense" then, ...is in the eye of those who profess to have it, or practice it, or ask of others why they don't?
An individual, personalized measurement or assesment of how the world works at all levels of society.

Wnston, I agree with your comments about celebrities in that they more often than not, do have a warped sense of reality, and in that case, their personal perception of "common sense" ,...well makes perfect sense, but only because they don't live in the real world with the rest of us.

"Common sense" then is probably not the question, but when I came across a raving Anti making all the usual claims about the deadly toxins in SHS, I often ask myself and them why they believe the things they recite verbatim from ACS, ALA, AHA, CTFK, etc, when "common sense" suggests the opposite of their argument is true.
I will often ask; If you're really concerned about the Health of smokers, and consequently the effects of SHS on non-smoers, then why aren't you campaigning for full blown prohibition?
The typical response is usually along the lines of; "Prohibition didn't work the first time" or, unbelievably, "We don't want to make it illegal, we just want you to stop"

quote:

Originally posted by LightningBoy:
Winston, I agree with your comments about celebrities in that they more often than not, do have a warped sense of reality, and in that case, their personal perception of "common sense" ,...well makes perfect sense, but only because they don't live in the real world with the rest of us.

That's the thing, we all have personal perception of our own "common sense", it's not static.

Was it Voltaire?
"I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"

My 'common sense' receptor can't understand why liberals think the way they do- and vice-versa.

Common Sense is not Consensus

You're very right Gilster. "Common sense is not Consensus". But whatever happened to our tolerant country? We (maybe I'm dating myself here), who were raised in the late 50s and early 60s, were trained to be tolerant of differences in lifestyles (or maybe that's only where I grew up?)... Now no younger person has learned tolerance... They've been raised by the DARE machine and public education...It's so scary!