Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Second Amendment You will lose your RTKABA!!

I keep hearing mention of the notion that one is likely to "lose his RTKABA if he does this or that." One cannot lose that right. Who would take it away? The Government? Impossible, as the government was not the source of this right to start with. The only thing government can do is to stop recognizing a man's RTKABA, in essence declare war on his personal liberties, making him a second class citizen (a sort of serf-status or slave, really) in the Republic. His rights, however, remain exactly as they were when he first acquired adult status.

We are endowed by our Creator (NOT GOVERNMENT) with certain inalienable rights. Among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Now, having a right to something, means that one may rightly defend that thing. Having a right to life, for instance, mean that we have the right to defend our life, and to the effective means thereto, i.e., the latest in personal arms, otherwise we cannot truly say that we have a right to life. It is precisely to secure this right to personal arms (among other rights) that legitimate governments are instituted among men to start with. That's legitimate government's only real function. If it fails in that function, it has become destructive to its own ends, and the word for that is tyranny. In which case it becomes the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government. So, when government seeks to deny a human being at liberty an inalienable right (i.e., a right permanently attached to his being a human being at liberty), it actually loses its own legitimacy as a government.

Exactly right TRH.

And to that point - I will henceforth rely on a more accurate phrase..."you will lose the convenience of practicing your 2A rights without expecting government prosecution".

How's that?

-FreeMe

Agreed. I think we should try to use correct language when speaking of such important issues.

Hi Hawkeye,

I would like to know what those initial stand for.

Thanks.

Jim

Right To Keep And Bear Arms Sir.

I figured it out right after I hit "enter" to post. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />
Thanks for your reply.
Jim

Why do you think the liberals are tyring to get "God" removed from our society? It's not because of seperation of church and state, that's for sure.

Excellent Post!

Straight from the Declaration of Independence.

I got to thinking and talking to my wife a couple of months ago. I told her that in my high school in Northern VA I was never assigned to read, (much less write a paper on) the Declaration of Independence. I took all the advanced courses. I took the super advanced course in my senior year, humanities and we were assigned to read many of the greek classics, some of the Roman works, War and Peace, some of the Bible, Camu, Kant, on and on. Then we had to write papers and then debate and defend our positions in open debate in front of a combined class room of two full classes. The teacher was merciless and you had to stand your ground. It was challenging and I enjoyed it, but we never discussed the concepts in the Declaration of Independence.

Socialists run our public schools and the aspect of Almighty God the Creator being in the equation of our political philosphy is altogether anathema to them. Our schools make war on God and America. And it is sad that many in the next generation have swallowed this socialist-antigod mindset hook line and sinker.

I'm guessing the homosexuals that are in consenting adult relationships that do what they do behind closed doors feel as strongly about this as we do about keeping our guns.

I'm also guessing people can come up with many more reasons why a society shouldn't have guns, than why a society shouldn't have gays or athiests.

Now, the Michael Moores and Sarah Brady's of this world are who I wish the Christian gun owners would concentrate their efforts on because some of the other fights I read about on this board involve taking rights from other's rather than defending your own.

TRH,

I agree with most of your post, but I do feel that rights can be forfeited. As far as the 2nd Amendment or RKBA, this was originally penned by our Founding Fathers (original government at the time). It wasn't something that we had before our passage of the Bill of Rights. It was "God given" after the passage of those laws. Was it not?

Longbob,

Dig a little into the background and context of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights and you will see that the Founding Fathers did, in fact, regard our 2A rights as preexisting those documents. Actually, nowhere in our Constitution are we "given" any rights because the Constitution does not apply to any individual. It ONLY applies to our government.

achadwick,

How much more digging should I do? Have you read the Federalist Papers? Specifically the parts referring to the Second Amendment? How about these quotes from Thomas Jefferson?


"To secure these [inalienable] rights [to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed... Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776.

"The Declaration of Independence... [is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and of the rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Adams Wells, 1819.

"It is to secure our rights that we resort to government at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francois D'Ivernois, 1795.

"[These are] the rights which God and the laws have given equally and independently to all." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774.

"All... natural rights may be abridged or regulated in [their] exercise by law." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Residence Bill, 1790.

"Every man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the right of self-government... This, like all other natural rights, may be abridged or modified in its exercise by their own consent, or by the law of those who depute them, if they meet in the right of others." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Residence Bill, 1790.

"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Gilmer, 1816.

Longbob,

The quotes in your post serve to strengthen my point, I think. Perhaps I didn't understand your original question?

I'm sorry, but if those quotes support anything other than what I have said then I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

The point he is trying to make is that the original text of the Constitution and the original Bill of Rights, i.e. the first ten ammendments, don't grant any rights but simply recognise pre-existing rights that are to be protected by said Constitution and by extension the United States Government. In the beginning our government didn't think so much of it's self as to think that it had the ability to bestow rights where non existed before. It was simply thought appropriate, and rightly so, that it should enumerate certain pre-existing rights which deserved particular protection as a example of business the government should stay out of. Too bad that concept was lost somewhere along the way.

Skidrow,

I understand the purpose of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Let's go back to my original comments about forfeiture. Inalienable (or unalienable) by definition means that it is something that cannot be forfeited. I understand that. But I would think God and our Founding Fathers feel that a person has forfeited their right to life if he is intent on murdering others, for example.

The criminal knows this prior to the commission of the crime that this is part of the punishment. How does this come to pass? Well, there are laws in place that will remove the criminals right to life. Otherwise, if I go with the TRH's original post on this thread, we as a people have no ability to carry forward with this punishment. I think we do have that ability.

Skidrow,



To expand a bit more on your comments about the inclusion of the Bill of Rights. Not everyone in the government thought they were necessary. James Madison for example.



At the Constitutional Convention, James Madison had not believed that a bill of rights was required for the new government. However, during the ratification process, several states had called for a bill of rights, and Madison felt it was his obligation or duty to purpose them. In later years, his letters revealed no great pride of authorship. In a letter of 1821 he referred to "those safe, if not necessary, and those politic, if not obligatory, amendments." In his speech to Congress the best he could say of a bill of rights was that it was "neither improper nor absolutely useless." This is, certainly, faint praise. Then again in a letter to Thomas Jefferson he stated that he was in favor of a bill of rights. Many of the delagates were against the efforts of George Mason to consider them.



Please don't misread my comments. I feel that the Bill of Rights are necessary to remove any doubt. It is fortunate for us that Madison gave in and proposed them to the House of Representatives in 1789.

No one can bestow rights upon another, only privileges. No one can take your rights from you but can only prevent you from exercising them. Of course, you and/or anyone else can voluntarily chose to refrain from exercising any or all of your rights at any time and for as long a time as you desire but that doesn't necessarily mean those rights are forfeit. Don't confuse recognising rights with bestowing privileges or preventing the exercise of rights with revoking them. Your crime and punishment analogy doesn't wash either. You can't take even a criminal's rights away from him. You can only prevent him from exercising them with capital punishment being the ultimate means of prevention.

I agree, the Bill of Rights was a good idea. Its too bad we didn't keep it that simple. To most of us it still is, but then most of us know what "is" means. (Not meant to imply that you don't)

Skidrow,

The way I read your comments is that a felon and I are on equal footing as a member of society. I say we are not. No matter what the crime, the felon should always be able to exercise the same rights that I have? That is pure bunk.

Maybe you missed this quote from Jefferson that I posted before.

"Every man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the right of self-government... This, like all other natural rights, may be abridged or modified in its exercise by their own consent, or by the law of those who depute them, if they meet in the right of others. " --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Residence Bill, 1790.

Hi guys. I believe that once a felon has done his time that all his rights should be restored, depending on the type of crime. If it was a violent crime then his rights should be limited. If non-violent then all rights should be restored. Several states are beginning to restore these rights to a certain extent. New Mexico is probably the most open minded with our wonderful state running a close 2nd. There are people who screwed up and got caught and others that didn't get caught. If Mr. Clinton had been caught "Not Inhaling" in our fair state during the 60's he would have been a convicted felon. There are some pretty decent convicted felons out there. They just screwed up. I know several who have spent the better parts of their lives as good decent law abiding citizens while trying to forget their past. It is a shame that the Federal Government won't let them.

Have a great day.

Jim

Didn't say that he should be able to exercise them, only that he has them. You're still confusing rights and privileges. Rights are something you're born with. Privileges are something someone gives you. If you didn't give it, how can you take it away?

I don't think I'm confusing anything, but help me out anyway. Which one of the first ten amendments are privledges?

Wish he would have been, then he would never have been Prez!

Klintoon ain't one of them!

NOT ONE!

T LEE



I couldn't agree more. Wouldn't that have been a blessing. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />



Jim

As T LEE posted, "Not one!". "In the beginning", if you will, the U.S. federal government recognised pre-existing rights and enumerated some of them for special protection from itself. Somewhere since then we've let it get off track. These days it seems to believe that it can bestow rights when all that it actully can do is bestow privileges. Rights are innate, privileges are given. Ergo, priviliges can be revoked, denied, resinded etc. by an act or acts of man, rights cannot be. Only the exercise of rights can be denied, and then only with the consent or acquiescence of those being denied the exercise of their rights. The rights themselves are not subject to any act of man.

Skidrow,

I never referred to any of the rights as privledges. But even Thomas Jefferson doesn't agree with you as evidenced by some of his quotes. The last quote I posted addresses this directly.

Either the person has the right or they don't. If you were correct about someone maintaining their 2nd Amendment right after the conviction of armed robbery, then they are willingly giving up that right at conviction? You said that they have to consent or acquiesce to this. They are not consenting to this. It is being taken away as it should be. If this right was protected to this felon by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, this never could happen. Even the Supreme Court doesn't have your view.

BUT, if they aquire another fireame they are not giving up there right, men say they are breaking the law.

TLee,

Under Skidrow's scenario, the felon has not consented to giving up his RKBA. If he hasn't consented, then the Constitution should protect his RKBA. Shouldn't it?

Men (very wise men) wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It wasn't something that came down off the mountain with the 10 Commandments. It is up to men (and women) to interpret these laws.

I have done what I could to post quotes from some that had written these documents to help remove doubts. The rest of what I see are opinions and everyone is certainly well within their rights to post their opinions. I may not agree with them, but I have enjoyed the discourse.

Don't misconstrue, I feel that when they chose to violate the law of the land they are in a sense giving up their rights by default. The semantics can get pretty dicey however. I do not believe we have a "living Constitution", I believe they meant just what they put to paper. Any screwing or scewing of the original is flat wrong, no interpretation needed.

The United States Constitution has never prevented a felon from exercising his 2nd Amendment rights after he has served his time and "paid his debt to society". It wasn't until well into the 20th century that laws (most of which have never been challenged on Constitutional grounds) were made that prevented a felon who had completed his sentence from exercising his right under the 2nd Amendment. The United States Government, as represented by the Supreme Court has protected a felon's right to excercise his 2nd Amendment rights by ruling that convicted felons are exempt from any firearms licensing or registration scheme that may ever become law because it violates their 5th Amendment rights. In other words, if they have a gun they are not required to tell any government official that they have a gun and are therefore in violation of the law. By extension, that means that as long as they don't get caught violating any laws which would prevent them from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights they are recognised as acting within their 2nd Amendment rights. Pretty hard to take, isn't it?

Making something against the law doesn't revoke a right, although it does somewhat hamper one's ability to exercise that right.

You know, you're making this a lot harder than it really is. It's really pretty simple. Rights are innate, not granted. Privileges are granted, given, bestowed etc., not innate. The exercise of rights can be prevented but the rights themselves still are there. If my rights include the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness then the only way that you can deprive me of my right to life is to kill me. Even then you haven't really deprived me of my right but merely prevented me from exercising it via the most drastic means. I don't really care if you agree with me or not but from what you've posted so far it seems that you don't even understand the argument. The basic problem here is that words have meanings and the English language is rich enough to enable anyone to say exactly what they mean. Perhaps your problem is that you don't have a firm enough grasp of the meaning of the words. Having said that, another thing that you should perhaps ponder is that you don't necessarily have to like something for it to be correct. It seems to me that a) you don't really understand the meaning of the words, and b) that you don't like what you're reading. That's fine. You have the right to disagree and so far no one has acted to prevent you from exercising that right. Even if someone had; just because someone prevented you from stating that you disagree with me does that mean that you agree with me? Hell no it wouldn't! You just wouldn't be able to express that disagreement. You still would disagree and you would have every right to. If fact, if you disagreed vehemently enough you would probably still try to express your disagreement even though the attempted act of expression might subject you to further restrictions on exercising your rights.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

None of the above was meant to insult you, but merely to try to get you to think outside the box you seem to have placed yourself in.

Longbob, I have to disagree with you. What you lose when you become a murderer is not so much your right to life as the privilege of having society defend that right. In other words, you're entirely on your own, baby, like in the state of nature, when you choose to become a murderer or other capital offender. But even men in a state of nature have the right to life. They just don't have a society willing and able to help defend it. That's the condition that murderers put themselves in. Not that they do not have a right to life, but that they have lost the privilege of a society willing to defend it.



Similarly, all legitimate prisoners lose, at least temporarily, the privilege of enjoying society's protection of the right to keep and bear arms, and to general liberty. They are on their own in defending their own rights. By becoming a victimizer, they have in many respects opted out of society, and the protections that society offers.