The right to own or carry

[BlueTrain]

Another contributor suggested to me in an e-mail that he was of the opinion that the right to vote should be something that is earned. I think he brought this up in response partly to my mention of having served in both the army and the national guard and partly because of my comment about politicians.

If that is a logical thought, then it follows that voting is not a birthright, even if your grandfather was born here (which is how Dan Beard defined a true American), although he didn't mention that part. Whether or not the idea has any merit, it has certainly been true that voting has not always been seen as a birthright--for everyone.

Moving on from that point, it is entirely logical to wonder if the right to own or carry a firearm (or any weapon) is a simple right or something that should be earned. It often seems that some contributors here share that sentiment in one way or another, generally expressed as referring to some particular individual as one "who shouldn't be allowed to have a gun." It is true that you generally have to have some form of basic training to obtain a concealed carry permit and the same for a hunting license, unless you had one before the requirement was established (at least where I live).

Whether or not it's a good idea or not, I'm sure glad I didn't have to take a test to get to vote. It's hard enough just to get to the polling place.

 

[foxytwo]

The right to vote has been guaranteed by the lives of our soldiers. Exercise it wisely and often.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Rights either are or are not. Rights can not be earned. A "right" that must be earned is a privilege, a privilege dictated by those with MORE privilege. A right exists whether it is recognized by everyone or no one. Everything else shifts with the wind.

 

[osallent]

Sorry, but the right to vote is extended to all citizens via the 15th and 19th amendments. And the US Supreme Court has used the 14th amendment due process clause to find that voting is a fundamental right, and any laws infringing that right are subject to STRICT SCRUTINY! Seems like your friend might want to reread the US constitution. Unfortunately I had 2 courses on Constitutional Law in law school, so I had to learn this material like the back of my hand from a 1,400 page case book :barf:

And personally, while I haven't served in the military, I pay Federal Income tax (and have done so since I was 15 and first worked), and I pay state property taxes. Therefore, as a taxpayer, I have an interest in voting because it gives me a say on how I want my money to be spent.

And last, I take a huge exception with the assertion made that unless my grandfather was born in the US, I am not a true American. What am I then? After all, I am solely a citizen of the US.....so where else should I go? And my first cousin who is serving in the army...by your definition he would not be a true American either.

 

[gearhounds]

To me, if you have entered this country legally, pay your taxes, are honest and law abiding, and swear your loyalty, you have earned ther right to have your opinion matter on who runs the place. A toad that cooks meth, despite having lineage that goes back to the first pilgrims, is no citizen.

I have never been in the military, but in my line of work will gladly stay in harms way here at home to protect my fellow citizens when and where I can. When I retire, I will do whatever I'm capable of doing to accomplish the same. That's what being a citizen is.

 

[Edward429451]

Now that was a treat. Kind of an obscure reference to an old writer that surely most of you have never even heard of, Dan Beard. Thanks for that, good writer!
Was that taken from The Book of Camp Lore and Woodcraft?

He wasn't pickin' on you osallent, he was quoting a writer, and for us whose grandfathers were born here, the quote has the ring of truth to it. I am sure that is was not meant as a slight to you and we appreciate your families service to our country. You certainly have the American Spirit

As for the voting and gun rights issue, of course we are born with the rights, but with bad behavior can lose the rights and even be taken out of society.

I think it may be a little naive to think that voting means anything nowadays, the fix has been in for decades and they will put in power whoever they want to.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I think you are only a true American if your ancestors evolved here. Great-grand-pa Beard-Lobed Fish crawled out of Lake Eire on the shores of what was going to be Buffalo and started the path to his family's status as relative intelligent primates.

What a stupid idea.

Anyway, maybe you should be able to vote if when asked you can name a newspaper or magazine you read to be inforned.

- Oh, sorry to be sarcastic. Is training necessary for a permit? Interesting practical vs. theoretical issue? Personally, if permits are required - any law abiding citizen should be able to get one. Should such a law abiding citizen get training - yes they should. Esp. if they expound on their warrior abilities.

 

[BlueTrain]

Oh, the whole thing is a practical versus the legal or more to the point, reality.

No, you aren't born with too many rights, especially the right to vote. You only have that right when you are old enough, which varies, same as a lot of other rules. But generally speaking, the rights you may or may not have depend on other things. If any of them came from god, then where's the granite slab? Or was it brass plates?

Essentially, it could be said that these rights, whatever they are but here especially the right to have and hold weapons, guns in particular, are granted us because those in power (there is always someone in power) have been forced to grant them. That's the way it works. That's why people join unions. That's why there is a Union, which we achieved after the revolution. Ironically, the Union was achieved, in a manner of speaking, by men exercising all those rights, sometimes in the face of armed opposition. That's the way it usually happens anyway, although that explanation leaves out a lot.

I don't know which book the quote from Dan Beard was taken from but if you think there are conservatives now, you don't know your history. He didn't even think people should live in bungalows because, as you no doubt know, they are foreign houses. But he didn't write about guns so much. For that, read Horace Kephart.

My correspondent (not my friend) was not referring to the constituion as it was, which makes no reference to qualifications for voting qualifications until the admendments, if I'm not mistaken (I often am) but rather the way he thought it should be. At this point one could go into a discussion of rights and obligations, duties and responsibilities but I expect I'd lose the readers that have made it this far.

 

[Kreyzhorse]

it is entirely logical to wonder if the right to own or carry a firearm (or any weapon) is a simple right or something that should be earned.

Essentially the right to carry a firearm is "earned" in New York, New Jersey, California and other anti-handgun areas. That right isn't "earned" by most people who apply.

Any time you have someone placing their requirements on your ability to exercise your right, you've just set that right up to be denied.

The simple act of earning a right causes it to cease to exist as a right.

 

[MLeake]

My guess is...

... that the person who suggested earning the right to vote was probably a fan of Robert Heinlein.

Heinlein suggested that concept in Starship Troopers. Citizenship had to be earned through military service in that book.

While I can see a certain appeal to such an idea, I can't endorse it. But I do have to admit that I don't really like the way things are currently set up. More and more, people seem to vote to give themselves benefits. Seems like they should have more of a stake in making the system work, but how to achieve that?

 

[Eagle Eye]

Rights either are or are not. Rights can not be earned. A "right" that must be earned is a privilege, a privilege dictated by those with MORE privilege. A right exists whether it is recognized by everyone or no one. Everything else shifts with the wind.

Ahh........but rights can be taken away or denied. Ask any convicted felon!
Just because it is YOUR right does not make it everyone's right.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Actually Heinlein suggested other options beyond military service for those who were opposed to such but the service was equally dangerous.

He considered that folks might not be capable of being effective service folk but needed to that risk.

I know folks who through medical issues are incapable of service but are fine, intelligent humans. Rather have them vote than others.

It is true that rights are really a social construct based on the current social and philsophical context but that doesn't mean we can't see a set of them being worthwhile.

Voting being earned might be determined if you know where Concord from Lexington and Concord actually is.

 

[Buzzcook]

If something is a human right then it is a right for all humans. If it is limited to only citizens it is not a right.

 

[BlueTrain]

The last comment is a little too simplistic, I think. Obviously you don't have the same rights everywhere. I can vote and always have but I can't go across the river and vote in another state or even in another precinct. It probably isn't possible to earn the right to vote because there aren't enough ways to go around. But at one time, voting was quite restricted, more so in some places than in others. These days, on the other hand, many people seem to restrict their voting themselves out of some idea that they aren't supporting "the system." It isn't clear to me what they prefer as an alternative.

Even those who are against war have sometimes served honorably, which probably wasn't sufficient in the eyes of the super patriots who did not serve themselves.

But returning to firearms, I can't help but get the general impression that more people here think there should be some basic requirements that would have to be met before one were entitled to carry or even own a firearm. Remember the ways in the past in which voting was restricted and anyway, laws can always be written in such a way that they cannot be obeyed.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The voting restrictions were basically racist and/or to limit voting to an upper social class section of society.

Firearms restrictions in a society that recognizes the fundamental right to have a firearm for SD and the defense against tyranny usually and should be prevent obvious threats of firearms misuses - as in the case of felons or those ajudicated to be mentally incompetent to own a firearm.

The exact standards for such are under debate.

The voting restrictions and firearms laws are not a good comparison.

One might argue that mental competency should be a test for voting but that would eliminate many of the current candidates for high office.

 

[gearhounds]

"One might argue that mental competency should be a test for voting but that would eliminate many of the current candidates for high office."

Haw! We'd likely need to extend the test to candidacy beyond the voters then. "Don't blame me, I voted for the other guy".

 

[osallent]

I just thought of another reason why a law limiting voting to those who serve will never happen.....in addition to my earlier "substantive due process" argument, this proposed law would violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment because it would deny disabled individuals the right to vote, and the law would be discriminatory in it's face, intent, implementation, and impact. Not to mention that the standard for discrimination is rational basis with a bite.

LET ME PUT IT IN NON-LAWYER SPEAK: IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN

Move on!

Now unto the 2nd Amendment....the Court recently ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states via the 14th Amendment's due process clause, meaning that no state can prohibit individuals from owning guns because gun ownership is a fundamental right. GOOD NEWS!!!!

 

[Sensai]

Item 1 - The Constitution doesn't give anybody any rights, it only gaurantees the God given rights that we were born with.

Item 2 - The "right" to vote cannot, by definition, be a right. It has limitations for age, so you could not be born with it.

Item 3 - It is a privilege that is gauranteed by the Constitution under the conditions set forth in that document. Making any changes to the "right" to vote is a dangerous proposition, because we would be giving someone the power to determine what constitutes earning the "right". I'm not willing to give future lawmakers that kind of power, and I shutter at the thought of our present crop of lawmakers having it!

 

[pendennis]

Rights are those...

...things which we exercise, and by doing so, do not cost another human being anything.

To wit: I can speak freely. My doing so, doesn't cost you anything materially.

To wit: I can keep and bear arms. My doing so doesn't cost you anything materially.

To wit: I can be safe and secure on my person and in my home. My doing so doesn't cost you anything materially.

To wit: I can remain silent, and not bear witness against myself. My doing so doesn't cost you anything materially.

To wit: I can cast my vote on election day. My doing so doesn't cost you materially.

Conversely -

To wit: I can have the state (Federal, local, etc.) pay for my health care insurance. To do so costs every citizen materially.

To wit: I can use Federal marshalls to enforce so-called "public accommodations laws". To do so costs every citizen materially.

To wit: I can use administrative courts to evade various amendments to the U.S. Constitution. To do so costs every citizen materially.

To wit: I can use the "bully pulpit" as President to browbeat a corporation who has a legal contract with a person who has defaulted on a contract, into letting me stay in a home for which I haven't paid. To do so costs every citizen materially.

To summarize, every time I excercise a real right, I cost no one anything. Everytime I exercise an unconstitiutional law, I cost the entire country a fortune.

Phrases such as "fighting words" and the "common good" (there is no such thing) are canards used by liberals to "find" some right where none exists.

 

[pendennis]

Sensei wrote

Item 1 - The Constitution doesn't give anybody any rights, it only gaurantees the God given rights that we were born with.

Item 2 - The "right" to vote cannot, by definition, be a right. It has limitations for age, so you could not be born with it.

Item 3 - It is a privilege that is gauranteed by the Constitution under the conditions set forth in that document. Making any changes to the "right" to vote is a dangerous proposition, because we would be giving someone the power to determine what constitutes earning the "right". I'm not willing to give future lawmakers that kind of power, and I shutter at the thought of our present crop of lawmakers having it!

I would take some exception to your second point. It's been long-recognized that exercise of rights is the realm of those of majority age (18 years, 21 years, etc.). Those within the age of minority do not have the experience nor the developed mental capacity to make sound adult judgements. This is not a concept only recognized in our two-hundred-plus years of existence.

Rights do have their limitations. We generally do not allow minors into the military, because they don't recognize the permanence of death, or the fact that they may have to write that check that states "Pay to the order...with my life". We also don't allow minors to enter into commercial contracts for financial commitments.