Is the Bill of Rights a Social Convention?

[critter]

[mod]split from the Houston Shooting thread at member request[/mod]

I agree with your sentiment here.

Playing devils advocate however-for millions of parents with kids in public school saying “suck it up,your kid being potential cannon fodder is a risk of having civil rights ” will be an unacceptable message. If families think repealing the 2nd Amendment is what it takes to secure a 10% chance of their child not being potentially hurt they’ll probably sign the petition no questions asked.

So, ultimately we return to the core problem : we must offer a social benefit to firearms beyond “that’s what the Constituon says”.

What's the social benefit of the 1st, 4th, 10th? What's a social benefit of any guaranteed right? I simply don't understand the thrust of this.. can you elaborate?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Why were some rights guaranteed? Social convention and agreement that they made for a better society.

[critter]

Why were some rights guaranteed? Social convention and agreement that they made for a better society.

A better society made possible by limiting government intrusion/control over citizens. I mean, that's what the bill of rights is.. distinct limitations of granted government authority as it relates to The People, or the 10th to states.

So, how does a boundary of "government, thou shalt not cross these lines" translate into a definable social benefit for one of the lines? I'm not being deliberately argumentative. I'm simply not getting this. Can you give me an example?

[GardoneVT]

A better society made possible by limiting government intrusion/control over citizens. I mean, that's what the bill of rights is.. distinct limitations of granted government authority as it relates to The People, or the 10th to states.

So, how does a boundary of "government, thou shalt not cross these lines" translate into a definable social benefit for one of the lines? I'm not being deliberately argumentative. I'm simply not getting this. Can you give me an example?

You and most internet savvy gun owners understand that point.

Most ordinary families do not. Why most of the population doesn’t understand their own national Constitution is a discussion for another time,but the reality is we need to sell gun ownership to the masses. Quoting the Constitution is not sufficient reason in the eyes of those same people ; if it were there’d be no debate in the first place.

Hence the requirement -odius as it is- to sell gun ownership as a social benefit. Otherwise ,what’s the common mans reason to accept the risk of -among other things- their kids being shot in a mass shooting? What’s the sales pitch beyond “it says so in the Constitution moron”?

[Robinson]

You and most internet savvy gun owners understand that point.

Most ordinary families do not. Why most of the population doesn’t understand their own national Constitution is a discussion for another time,but the reality is we need to sell gun ownership to the masses. Quoting the Constitution is not sufficient reason in the eyes of those same people ; if it were there’d be no debate in the first place.

Hence the requirement -odius as it is- to sell gun ownership as a social benefit. Otherwise ,what’s the common mans reason to accept the risk of -among other things- their kids being shot in a mass shooting? What’s the sales pitch beyond “it says so in the Constitution moron”?

On the other hand, if we remove from the discussion the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights and the concept that risks are inherent in a free society then eventually all that will be left are the blowing winds of public opinion. Which is exactly what differentiates a Constitutional Republic from other forms of democratic government.

I don't disagree that we should "offer a social benefit to firearms" to people in a way that makes it relevant to them. But I think the "core of the problem" is that our society continues to drift away from the ideas so central to our Constitution and specifically the BoR and further toward "what's in it for me?" So while we try to reach people based on ideas that they can relate to in everyday life we also need to call on our political leaders to stand on Constitutional ground no matter what.

Winning the argument over gun rights without bringing in the Constitutional aspects can at best secure a temporary victory no matter how effectively the message is conveyed. It needs to be done on both levels.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Folks who talk about the the inherent nature of this and that don't realize, that 'inherent' is a social construct that was decided upon after reflection by those involved in producing those documents. They are not the laws of physics or the fundamental constants of the universe that allow matter and energy to interact. Many societies have different views of what is inherent. The writers of the BOR did not see voting as inherent to women or that slavery was antithetical to human rights.

In a sense, folks say accept the 2nd Amend. because it is divine in origin or somehow philosophical inherent in human interaction. That is not the case - it is a social construct. All social constructs are products of evolutionary tendencies of human behavior and then the interactions of societal forces.

Evoking the Constitution as immutable divine or universal principles will not work and is just a statement of faith. Folks propose amendments to the Constitution to ban flag burning, ban inter-racial marriage, gay marriage, having alcohol, etc. Folks propose laws against blasphemy against their particular deity.

There is nothing inherent - there is only the winds of society. Thus, just saying the Constitution says this or that without justification to the current social circumstances doesn't work.

Why do you think, we have great debates about what justice gets selected for the SCOTUS - because they have different views on what some folks are the immutable, unchangeable Constitutional principles (which were never unchangeable). These justices tend to vote their philosophical views and then look for precedents. That's what scholars of the court think is the most important variance. This drives some legal folks crazy as they view justice as neutral and blind but they are stupid to think otherwise.

We made it difficult to alter the BOR but it can be done. It can be done if the courts say there is justification. Reasonable restrictions - socially seen as good because of Scalia's blather by judges who don't like guns. The Japanese were sent to camps - clearly against Constitutional principles but the Court and society thought there was justification for it.

Get you head out of your butts if you think a 2nd amend. is a mandate from God or a physical principle similar to the Pythagorean theorem defense is going to work to preserve gun rights. It might stop absolute bans and confiscation but you could see even stricter than NY or CA type laws quite easily with the correct political/social climate.

[Guerrero]

Folks who talk about the the inherent nature of this and that don't realize, that 'inherent' is a social construct that was decided upon after reflection by those involved in producing those documents. They are not the laws of physics or the fundamental constants of the universe that allow matter and energy to interact. Many societies have different views of what is inherent. The writers of the BOR did not see voting as inherent to women or that slavery was antithetical to human rights.

In a sense, folks say accept the 2nd Amend. because it is divine in origin or somehow philosophical inherent in human interaction. That is not the case - it is a social construct. All social constructs are products of evolutionary tendencies of human behavior and then the interactions of societal forces.

Evoking the Constitution as immutable divine or universal principles will not work and is just a statement of faith. Folks propose amendments to the Constitution to ban flag burning, ban inter-racial marriage, gay marriage, having alcohol, etc. Folks propose laws against blasphemy against their particular deity.

There is nothing inherent - there is only the winds of society. Thus, just saying the Constitution says this or that without justification to the current social circumstances doesn't work.

Why do you think, we have great debates about what justice gets selected for the SCOTUS - because they have different views on what some folks are the immutable, unchangeable Constitutional principles (which were never unchangeable). These justices tend to vote their philosophical views and then look for precedents. That's what scholars of the court think is the most important variance. This drives some legal folks crazy as they view justice as neutral and blind but they are stupid to think otherwise.

We made it difficult to alter the BOR but it can be done. It can be done if the courts say there is justification. Reasonable restrictions - socially seen as good because of Scalia's blather by judges who don't like guns. The Japanese were sent to camps - clearly against Constitutional principles but the Court and society thought there was justification for it.

Get you head out of your butts if you think a 2nd amend. is a mandate from God or a physical principle similar to the Pythagorean theorem defense is going to work to preserve gun rights. It might stop absolute bans and confiscation but you could see even stricter than NY or CA type laws quite easily with the correct political/social climate.

I understand your point. So, what line of reasoning *should* we use?

[critter]

Evoking the Constitution as immutable divine or universal principles will not work and is just a statement of faith.
...
Get you head out of your butts if you think a 2nd amend. is a mandate from God or a physical principle

I have no beliefs in gods of any kind.

Statement of faith? It's the Supreme Law of the USA which, supposedly, is the framework of liberty. If the 2nd amendment isn't worth fighting and/or dying for, then neither is any other pillar of freedom. Those western supposedly democratic nations (which leftists in this country hold in such high regard) without a Bill of Rights are already falling to the whims of government and where one may be arrested for disagreeing publicly with government policy, or if someone somewhere claims to be offended by -- and 'truth' or facts are no longer legal defense.

Persuasion involving the carrot of social benefits is all fine and dandy. I'll head up the stick brigade when the time comes.

[Robinson]

Folks who talk about the the inherent nature of this and that don't realize, that 'inherent' is a social construct that was decided upon after reflection by those involved in producing those documents. They are not the laws of physics or the fundamental constants of the universe that allow matter and energy to interact. Many societies have different views of what is inherent. The writers of the BOR did not see voting as inherent to women or that slavery was antithetical to human rights.

In a sense, folks say accept the 2nd Amend. because it is divine in origin or somehow philosophical inherent in human interaction. That is not the case - it is a social construct. All social constructs are products of evolutionary tendencies of human behavior and then the interactions of societal forces.

Evoking the Constitution as immutable divine or universal principles will not work and is just a statement of faith. Folks propose amendments to the Constitution to ban flag burning, ban inter-racial marriage, gay marriage, having alcohol, etc. Folks propose laws against blasphemy against their particular deity.

There is nothing inherent - there is only the winds of society. Thus, just saying the Constitution says this or that without justification to the current social circumstances doesn't work.

Why do you think, we have great debates about what justice gets selected for the SCOTUS - because they have different views on what some folks are the immutable, unchangeable Constitutional principles (which were never unchangeable). These justices tend to vote their philosophical views and then look for precedents. That's what scholars of the court think is the most important variance. This drives some legal folks crazy as they view justice as neutral and blind but they are stupid to think otherwise.

We made it difficult to alter the BOR but it can be done. It can be done if the courts say there is justification. Reasonable restrictions - socially seen as good because of Scalia's blather by judges who don't like guns. The Japanese were sent to camps - clearly against Constitutional principles but the Court and society thought there was justification for it.

Get you head out of your butts if you think a 2nd amend. is a mandate from God or a physical principle similar to the Pythagorean theorem defense is going to work to preserve gun rights. It might stop absolute bans and confiscation but you could see even stricter than NY or CA type laws quite easily with the correct political/social climate.

Glenn, I don't know if your post is a reference to mine or not but I will say that we disagree on a very fundamental level. The fact that at various times elements of our society have sought to bring about laws that conflict with the founding documents and the Bill of Rights doesn't make that practice okay. Your example of the Japanese sent to camps is a good example of what should never happen but was allowed to.

Why are members of the military sworn to defend the Constitution if it is not worth defending even unto death? The very foundation of this country was based on the idea that some rights are, in fact, inalienable. In other words, inherent. If the overwhelming view in the U.S. becomes "the Constitution is all relative" then the Republic is lost and the U.S. will go the way of all democracies.

And I don't need you or anyone else telling me to get my head out of my butt. The fight to preserve gun rights must be fought on multiple levels, including the approach of addressing the current social climate. Maybe you feel you are schooling the rest of us on some waning relevance of the Constitution. You're not.

[GardoneVT]

Glenn, I don't know if your post is a reference to mine or not but I will say that we disagree on a very fundamental level. The fact that at various times elements of our society have sought to bring about laws that conflict with the founding documents and the Bill of Rights doesn't make that practice okay. Your example of the Japanese sent to camps is a good example of what should never happen but was allowed to.

Why are members of the military sworn to defend the Constitution if it is not worth defending even unto death? The very foundation of this country was based on the idea that some rights are, in fact, inalienable. In other words, inherent. If the overwhelming view in the U.S. becomes "the Constitution is all relative" then the Republic is lost and the U.S. will go the way of all democracies.

And I don't need you or anyone else telling me to get my head out of my butt. The fight to preserve gun rights must be fought on multiple levels, including the approach of addressing the current social climate. Maybe you feel you are schooling the rest of us on some waning relevance of the Constitution. You're not.

Brilliant speech.

How will any of that matter to a single mom in Baltimore? At some point we have to sell her and others on guns being a good thing, inalienable and permanent United States Constitution or no. Because the other side isn’t stopping their sales pitch.