Is the Bill of Rights a Social Convention?

[JAD]

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.

That is a scientistic recasting of events that does not agree with fact. Morality is a constant and not a social construct. It isn't bad to strangle babies because we think it's bad, it's bad because it's /inherently/ bad. Most people, at least outside of academia, understand that -- and also are very open to the idea that rights are god-given and inalienable. It's not the rest of us who need to "get our heads out of our butts," but people like you who need to get out of their echo chamber.

[Robinson]

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.

First off, please stop with the condescension. It's not a speech, it is a statement of what I honestly believe to be true.

I am not advocating hitting people over the head with the Constitution as if it's the only recourse available. I am saying Yes, appeal to people in terms that will make an impact to them where they live. But we must also try to educate on the origins of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It's not an "either this or else that" scenario. Why not both? If we allow the origins of the 2nd Amendment to sink into shrouded history, God help us if we ever find ourselves (as a nation no less) in need of that other, less politically correct reason for its existence.

[GardoneVT]

First off, please stop with the condescension. It's not a speech, it is a statement of what I honestly believe to be true.

I am not advocating hitting people over the head with the Constitution as if it's the only recourse available. I am saying Yes, appeal to people in terms that will make an impact to them where they live. But we must also try to educate on the origins of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It's not an "either this or else that" scenario. Why not both? If we allow the origins of the 2nd Amendment to sink into shrouded history, God help us if we ever find ourselves (as a nation no less) in need of that other, less politically correct reason for its existence.

It is a choice; because for reasons outside the scope of this thread ordinary people are not educated about the import of the Constitution. We therefore cannot rely on it as a common justification for accepting the risk of gun rights.

Just like the 1st Amendment means accepting the risk of “FIRE” being yelled in a theater, accepting the 2nd means a nonzero chance of being shot by some jag off. While a forum of veterans and LEOs may be understanding of that fact, single moms might be less sanguine about the subject. In fact ,most concientous parents probably would be OK with gun control if it even offered just a fractional improvement in their children’s safety.

So, I propose we offer a better message to those parent justifiably concerned with their kids’ well being then “suck it up, that’s life in a free society.”

That is a scientistic recasting of events that does not agree with fact. Morality is a constant and not a social construct. It isn't bad to strangle babies because we think it's bad, it's bad because it's /inherently/ bad. Most people, at least outside of academia, understand that -- and also are very open to the idea that rights are god-given and inalienable. It's not the rest of us who need to "get our heads out of our butts," but people like you who need to get out of their echo chamber.

Careful. It was once thought that women voting was inherently bad.

Bottom line is we all have beliefs: but when it comes to our national government the laws thereof are subject to change with time. That includes the Constitution; which is why if we don’t market gun ownership as a social benefit beyond the Constitution or a moral basis , we may one day find ourselves facing a campaign to amend the 2nd right out of it.

[Robinson]

It is a choice; because for reasons outside the scope of this thread ordinary people are not educated about the import of the Constitution. We therefore cannot rely on it as a common justification for accepting the risk of gun rights.

Just like the 1st Amendment means accepting the risk of “FIRE” being yelled in a theater, accepting the 2nd means a nonzero chance of being shot by some jag off. While a forum of veterans and LEOs may be understanding of that fact, single moms might be less sanguine about the subject. In fact ,most concientous parents probably would be OK with gun control if it even offered just a fractional improvement in their children’s safety.

So, I propose we offer a better message to those parent justifiably concerned with their kids’ well being then “suck it up, that’s life in a free society.”

Okay, assume you must lose either your ability to carry a gun to protect yourself or the full protections of the 2nd Amendment. Pick one. Sounds like a stupid argument? Good, it's the same argument you are making.

You seem to be saying that the message to the public about gun ownership must consist only of reasons why people might be safer with guns than without them. But we dare not bring up the Constitutional protections that are in place to guarantee their right to do so otherwise we'll lose the argument. I say advocates of gun rights should indeed come up with messaging people will find relevant to their daily lives but if normal citizens are as clueless as you say about what a free society is and what may be required to keep it then we had better start addressing that over the long term as an even bigger risk to our freedoms.

[chl442]

It is a choice; because for reasons outside the scope of this thread ordinary people are not educated about the import of the Constitution. We therefore cannot rely on it as a common justification for accepting the risk of gun rights.

Just like the 1st Amendment means accepting the risk of “FIRE” being yelled in a theater, accepting the 2nd means a nonzero chance of being shot by some jag off. While a forum of veterans and LEOs may be understanding of that fact, single moms might be less sanguine about the subject. In fact ,most concientous parents probably would be OK with gun control if it even offered just a fractional improvement in their children’s safety.

So, I propose we offer a better message to those parent justifiably concerned with their kids’ well being then “suck it up, that’s life in a free society.”



Careful. It was once thought that women voting was inherently bad.

Bottom line is we all have beliefs: but when it comes to our national government the laws thereof are subject to change with time. That includes the Constitution; which is why if we don’t market gun ownership as a social benefit beyond the Constitution or a moral basis , we may one day find ourselves facing a campaign to amend the 2nd right out of it.

Yeah.... Well we'll see how that goes sport .
I honestly couldn't give a fuck what the average person in Baltimore or anywhere else for that matter feels about guns or gun control or what I do where i've choosen to live.They got the politicians and the gun laws they deserved.They have one vote . Just as I have one vote. That's it. Thus I could care less about winning hearts and minds at this point. That ship sailed a long time ago.
On another note I'm truly beginning to wonder if it's your goal just to stir up shit with the recent threads you've started .
Seriously, some people should read more and post less .

[Ed L]

Yeah.... Well we'll see how that goes sport .
I honestly couldn't give a fuck what the average person in Baltimore or anywhere else for that matter feels about guns or gun control or what I do where i've choosen to live.They got the politicians and the gun laws they deserved.They have one vote . Just as I have one vote. That's it. Thus I could care less about winning hearts and minds at this point. That ship sailed a long time ago.

I believe GardoneVT's concern is that in the face of the growing anti-gun hysteria, gunowners need to try to get more people on our side. This includes everything from getting gunowners who are not politically active to be active and vote accordingly, as well as getting people who may not own guns to not become politically active on the anti-gun side.

[critter]

So, I propose we offer a better message to those parent justifiably concerned with their kids’ well being then “suck it up, that’s life in a free society.”

...which is why if we don’t market gun ownership as a social benefit beyond the Constitution or a moral basis , we may one day find ourselves facing a campaign to amend the 2nd right out of it.

What is the better message and/or social benefit that you are thinking of when you write that? What's an idea you (or the single mother example) can get behind?

[RoyGBiv]

Bottom line is we all have beliefs: but when it comes to our national government the laws thereof are subject to change with time. That includes the Constitution; which is why if we don’t market gun ownership as a social benefit beyond the Constitution or a moral basis , we may one day find ourselves facing a campaign to amend the 2nd right out of it.

Let's get it on a ballot... Repeal 2A.
Then when the votes are counted and the proposition fails miserably, we can talk about limits on the propaganda machines' 1A rights next.

The notion that 2A is anywhere near unpopular with the majority is pure marketing BS.

ETA.
The Other America: The Anti-Gun Left Is Learning Their Tactics Do Not Resonate In Santa Fe

[Glenn E. Meyer]

But we dare not bring up the Constitutional protections that are in place to guarantee their right to do so otherwise we'll lose the argument.

No, that misses the subtle point. The Constitutional protections had sound reasons for existing and they were written by folks who thought there were sound reasons for them. Those arguments can be made again and if done wisely may convince enough folks to turn the majority towards gun rights. As stated before, should we argue for removing the right to vote for women or men of insufficient property as it was inherent in the Constitution?

My frustration is the argument style that says there can be no discussion of the societal impact of gun ownership as it is in BOR and the reason it is there is self-evident and without discussion. I have ideas about good arguments but that needs to be worked on. If you say arguments are useless, you are defeatist.

As an academic scientist who supports the RKBA - I see the importance of society, evolution and culture in the behavior of a society. Folks have pledged to give their lives for various things that their society views as self-evident and inherent but we certainly don't. Even in our own RKBA debates, why did Justice Scalia not clearly say that fully automatic rifles such as the M-16 were protected? He didn't.

My view of the defense against tyranny rationale for the 2nd Amend. would be that they should be protected. So what is inherent or self-evident? Scalia cites past precedents, common usage, what the average person might have at home, etc. But that was contrary to a clear statement that they should be protected because of the overriding issue of protection against tyranny. That should have superseded his discussion of militia weapons of the past.

There is a societal context for how things proceed. You cannot ignore that. Culture change as led to changes in Civil Rights, Women's rights, and what is legal. That will continue and must be understood to protect gun rights.

[Kukuforguns]

There are a whole host of arguments that can be made in different ways and which appeal to different people:
1) Firearms save lives. Up to 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year. The weakness here is that the evidence is contested. Dedicated surveys clearly put the number of uses in the high hundreds of thousands to low millions. But, non-specific surveys (National Crime Victimization Survey) puts the number much lower (~100,000).
1a) Argument number 1 can be made by citing the surveys. This is dry and academic and subject to argument.
1b) Argument number 1 can be made by getting defensive gun users to do public service announcements. This is emotionally compelling, but logically weak.
1c) Argument number 1 can be made by showing the number of deaths at the hands of evil governments. The counterargument is that a bunch of weekend warriors are not going to win a fight against the U.S. military.
2) The right to self-defense is a human right and guns equalize disparate physical characteristics. I know the NRA armed citizen articles, but it would be more effective if it had videos of dimunitive survivors appear in videos talking about their experience.
3) There is no correlation between strong gun-control and violent crime. This is why gun-control advocates talk about "gun violence" instead of violent crime.
4) The right to keep and bear arms is a tradition in America. See Nicholas Johnson's Negroes and the Gun: The Black Tradition of Arms for a refutation that it's a tradition only for White Americans.
5) The government wants to take away your guns for a nefarious reason. This sells really well to people who already are believers.
6) Proposals for new gun control laws are ineffective. The counter-argument is "If it saves even one life . . ."
7) Many of the "common sense gun laws" already on the books were enacted with the support of the NRA.
8) The government isn't enforcing many of the "common sense gun laws" already on the books. Why enact more?

We're familiar with all of these arguments. On an individual level, I'm sure most of us use all of them. We consider the audience we are attempting to convince and tailor our arguments based on the audience.

I'm disappointed with the NRA's choice of Oliver North because I want the NRA appealing to the many undecided people in the country in order to expand people who support the RKBA. Mr. North will be perceived as an extremist. The gun-controllers already portray the NRA as an extremist organization, even as a terrorist. The NRA needs to actively undermine that argument and portray itself -- accurately -- as an organization with extremely broad support from regular people. I'm glad the NRA formed a relationship with Colion Noir as it was an attempt to broaden the NRA's appeal. However, so many of the NRA's spokespeople are aggressive advocates that can be off-putting to undecided people. I'd like to see more spokespeople who look like regular people who decided to buy guns for regular reasons. More articles on the Otis McDonald's of the world. Stories on frail people who bought guns for protection and feel safer because of it (or, even better, who used their weapon to protect themselves). Every year I read several stories that would appear to be make extremely compelling stories, and yet I never see an NRA video showing the survivor talk about the impact a gun made in that person's life. I do sometimes hear the survivors talk in podcasts, so I know some of them are willing to discuss their stories.