,
12 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
There's a serious problem, and it relates to rights. We tend to forget they are general and NOT specific. Here are our rights, only four:
1) Life
2) Liberty
3) The Pursuit of Happiness
4) Property
Again, note that each is general, NOT specific.
1) Life
2) Liberty
3) The Pursuit of Happiness
4) Property
Again, note that each is general, NOT specific.
When you do, you'll find the following. He approaches the 2nd Amendment as if its technical statement was the matter at hand. He is 100% wrong. The right to bear arms is merely a specific subset of the rights to life, liberty and property. Please discipline your mind over this.
A gun is a property. You have the liberty to own one. It is used to protect your life. And then NOT to mention how happy one is when shooting a gun! Let's dive deeper. There were two sides in 1787, Federalists - supporting the new constitution - and Anti-Federalists, opposing it.
Foolish men, the Anti-Federalists lost the very moment they allowed the Federalists to choose both names. You never win merely opposing something. You have to be FOR something. So sad. What the AFs feared most was a central government too powerful.
As they read the constitution, they feared the powers granted, merely general rights would be too vulnerable. So, they - especially Patrick Henry - insisted on the first 10 amendments as our bill of rights. The problem? In protecting specific rights we weaken general rights.
In the end, and it was painful for me, I abandoned my beloved Anti-Federalists and became a true fan of our constitution. And, I love our Bill of Rights, specific though they are. But, I am 100% cognizant of our great four general rights. Work with me on that...
General rights - and ONLY four of them - are what our civil society is supposed to base ever specific law upon. Any specific law that violates a general right is thereby simply wrong. Yes, we need our specifically delineated rights in the first 10 amendments.
But Justice Stevens' error in interpreting the 2nd amendment, technically as he does, is that he raises the specific over the general. I don't think he's right even at that. But, all argument fades once you discern the general right. Protect your life. Protect your liberty.
Pursue happiness. Protect your property. A gun is a property. You have the right to OWN it. You are allowed to use it to protect your other general rights. You are NOT allowed to use it to destroy anyone else's general rights.
General vs specific. It may seem mentally difficult, but it's not. The 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights are purposefully specific. That does NOT, however, in any way, limit our general rights.
With zero humility, I now drop the mike.
With zero humility, I now drop the mike.
P.S. As a bonus history lesson, the Federalists were not. They were Centralists. The Anti-Federalists were not. They were Federalists. What no one was, anymore, was a Confederalist. Words. They make such a mess of things...
