Senator Murphy (CT) says RKBA is not absolute

Discussion of Firearm Politics & Legislation. This forum is now strictly limited to discussions directly related to firearms.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

Post Reply
bignflnut
Volunteer
Volunteer
Posts: 8135
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Under Naybob Tinfoil Bridge
Contact:

Senator Murphy (CT) says RKBA is not absolute

Post by bignflnut »

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) tweeted Saturday there is a “real” Second Amendment and an “imaginary” one and he believes the real one is “not absolute.”

Murphy tweeted, “I support the real 2nd Amendment, not the imaginary 2nd Amendment. And the real 2nd Amendment isn’t absolute.”

The statement was a precursor to his call for banning “assault rifles” in the wake of the Santa Fe High School shooting, even though “assault rifles” were not used in the attack.

Murphy said the “real 2nd Amendment…allows Congress to wake up to reality and ban these assault rifles that are designed for one purpose only – to kill as many people as fast as possible.”
Of course Murphy is saying that there can be restrictions to RKBA, a line that both parties and nearly all engaged in the issue stipulate. However, when one is willing to hop on that slippery slope, one cannot then define when and where the exit is justified.

There is no neutral position to be taken. One is either of the belief that RKBA (or any other right) is absolute, or that it can be watered down and regulated into oblivion. Do we guard our Liberty jealously, or do we allow definitions to be changed and citizens to be deemed felons with the stroke of a pen?

Here we go destroying absolute truth claims in favor of some ever changing cultural ethos of the time. Is mathematics absolute, or does it evolve? Did 7 evolve from 6? Is mathematics universally true, no matter where and when you apply it, is 2+2=4 true? Does the culture or the voting population influence this truth? Can we anchor ourselves in anything absolute?

We're calling an absolute RKBA "imaginary"?
If the Bill of Rights or the Constitution isn't "absolute", then what restricts government from damaging our Liberties? How do we define Liberties/Rights? If the law is no longer the goalie, what is and how is is supported/strengthened?
“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.”–G.K. Chesterton-Illustrated London News, 3-14-1908

Republicans.Hate.You. See2020.

"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams to Mass Militia 10-11-1798
qmti
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 664
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 2:18 pm

Re: Senator Murphy (CT) says RKBA is not absolute

Post by qmti »

A true politician, talking out both sides of his mouth.
WhyNot
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:23 am
Location: NW Ohio

Re: Senator Murphy (CT) says RKBA is not absolute

Post by WhyNot »

As I have said before;

Dear Senator,

String is on sale down at the $$ store for your kite. And always, always read the back of the cereal box during the 1st bowl, and the slight refill IF there's any milk left over....
Acquisitions thus far:

-Slingshot
-Butter knife
-Soda straw and peas
-Sharpened pencil
-Newspaper roll
--water balloon (*diversionary*)

Yeah, I'm that good
User avatar
WY_Not
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 2435
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 10:15 pm
Location: Miami County, OH
Contact:

Re: Senator Murphy (CT) says RKBA is not absolute

Post by WY_Not »

I think you have the wrong body part.
qmti wrote:A true politician, talking out both sides of his mouth.
Learn how Project Appleseed is supporting freedom through Marksmanship and Heritage clinics.
Samuel Adams wrote:If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
bignflnut
Volunteer
Volunteer
Posts: 8135
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Under Naybob Tinfoil Bridge
Contact:

Re: Senator Murphy (CT) says RKBA is not absolute

Post by bignflnut »

(IDK who this guy is, and it doesn't matter, I'm going to engage his argument, not impugn his character.)
After mass shootings of innocent people, defenders of an absolute Second Amendment argue against new limits, claiming we should focus exclusively on the shooters and not place any obstacles on their easy access to guns.

Can we reasonably expect to identify in advance every mentally ill or deeply disturbed person in a country of 320 million people? Impossible. So access to guns, which can be used to quickly kill groups of people, might be made a little more difficult.

The issue could be seen as a conflict between the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” for ourselves and our children, promised by the Declaration of Independence, and the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms.”


Which right would come closer to being absolute? Must we accept the killing of school children, followed only by routine and pious expressions of official sympathy, because the Second Amendment cannot be subject to any limits?

It's not an either or scenario. It's BOTH AND!
See, the State cannot and will not keep the citizenry physically safe (assuming the faulty premise that they even desired to do so). Therefore, it is incumbent upon each individual or community to protect itself from bodily harm. This is in keeping with the aforementioned “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. With all of it's mighty declarations of "law" the State has not corrected human nature and while some may desire the oppressive and false safety of authoritarian rule, America was founded on something called Liberty. This Liberty from government oppression is what distinguished America in the history of governments on Earth and caused a great deal of prosperity to bloom.


Quick aside: Accepting the proper premise that the State is unable to ID "every mentally ill or deeply disturbed person in a country of 320 million people", why is the State able to limit/eliminate access to a greater number of firearms (not to mention the other multitudes of weapons/gasoline/flammables)?
We cannot ignore the Constitution, including the Second Amendment, and remain “united.” But, as a civilized people, we should not ignore the increasing plight of innocent school children shot down by killers with easy access to guns.

The obvious answer in the vast and diverse American democracy must be compromise, which would involve some limits, at least including full-scale background checks, but not repeal.

I support the Second Amendment. But I cannot accept that it is the Constitution’s only absolute, unlimited right.
A) You do NOT support the Second Amendment, as evidenced by your argument against it being absolute. Indeed, as the 2nd Amendment itself, declares, RKBA is "necessary to the security of a free State". Any compromise on RKBA invites Freedom's destruction.
B) Agreed, it is not the only absolute, unlimited right. They all are. And they weave together beautifully. That's what “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” means: Living in such a way as to arrange one's affairs without the interference and unjust oppression of government.

RKBA goodness for your viewing pleasure.
“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.”–G.K. Chesterton-Illustrated London News, 3-14-1908

Republicans.Hate.You. See2020.

"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams to Mass Militia 10-11-1798
Post Reply