What do you have the "Right" to own?

[Fly320s]

There's the question.

So, what do you think you have the "Right" to own? I say "Right" (in quotes) to encompass all your definitions of rights and all your definitions of ownership.

Some people think that rights are granted via the U.S. Constitution. Some believe that rights come from a higher power. Some believe that rights are inherent to humans.

As an example, here at THR we often say we have the right to own firearms. We back up that statement by saying that right is guaranteed by the Constitution.

Are there other tangible items that we have the "Right" to own?

Are there other reasons we have these "Rights?"

Is there anything that we don't have the "Right" to own? Or any reason?

 

[ForeverArmed]

I'd say people have the right to individually own anything at all apart from items which, by their very ownership or use, present an undue danger to innocent people.

An example might be nerve gas. It certainly can't be used for the defense of life or even liberty, and in populated areas it always presents a danger to innocent bystanders. So I'd say there's no right to own it.

Another example might be kiddie porn. Some sicko who buys it is helping to violate the rights and safety of children, so it should be illegal.

 

[Soybomb]

An example might be nerve gas. It certainly can't be used for the defense of life or even liberty

I don't see why it couldn't. I imagine gassing a building/camp full of nazi officers would have been quite a victory in fact.

I believe that I have the right to own anything that does not impact the rights of others. Much like defining pornography, this can be a difficult task, but I know it when I see it.

 

[Manedwolf]

Much like defining pornography, this can be a difficult task, but I know it when I see it.

That example never works well, unfortunately. Remember, to Victorians and fundie Muslims, pornography is a woman showing her ankles.

 

[the naked prophet]

Anything you think you own, which is taxed by the (or a) government on a periodic basis, is not owned by you. You are only renting it from the government who really owns it. Your house, your car? If you don't pay rent (property tax) then the owners (government) will evict you (confiscate your property with tax law) and find new renters (auction it off to someone who will pay the taxes). You only have the right to own property which is not valuable enough to be taxed.

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

Anything that is not inherently dangerous to those around you. Anything that isn't by it's very nature indiscriminent in terms of it's use.Inherent being the defining word there.

A rifle, a shotgun, a machinegun, a pistol or revolver. All are definitely disciminant enough to be legal. I can see arguments for and against rocket and grenade launchers (besically, ability to regulate their use, as opposed to the guns, which should have zero regulation).

As to NBC, that should be entirely illegal. I myself honestly question whether the government should have NBC. The only justification I see for those weapons is because other nations have them as well.

 

[Fosbery]

Anything that they have aquired legitimately i.e. not stolen.

 

[MudPuppy]

I can see arguments for and against rocket and grenade launchers

Lot's of anti's see arguments against grenade launchers and full autos. And semi auto "assault rifles" and handguns. And any type of gun.

My opinion is that the citizens should be able to absolutely own anything available to law enforcement. And the military should be absolutely forbidden to be used against the citizens in any capacity.

In truth, we don't have the right to own any firearm (look to the recent case where the machine gun owner had to prove his second amendment right to own firearms and was convicted due to the fact that he wasn't in a state approved militia. And since most of us aren't in a state approved militia, we can not own those types of guns--and if one type isn't protected, then none are.)

Look to the SCOTUS ruling last year on emminent domain. (As a RKBA advocate, I'd still say that was the biggest injustice in the country's history.) In short, nothing belongs to you.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Let us not confuse . . .

. . . the right to own with the right to use.

I am allowed to own a revolver. I'm allowed to use it to defend my home, my family, and my person. I'm not allowed to rob a bank with it. I'm not allowed to shoot my landscaper because he still got the job wrong and overcharged me for it.

Ownership really CAN'T be a crime. It only establishes capability to commit a crime. Capability is not crime. Action can be crime. Crime is what you do.

If capability is crime, then there are 200 million people who need to be locked up. We all have hands and feet and many of us have knives and axes and bats and bricks and a car. The potential for crime there is staggering.

Criminalizing the ownership of ANYTHING is just plain wrong.

 

[ejort]

Brandishing

I would tend to agree with ArfinGreebly, but I will admit that I can't say I'm comfortable with individual ownership of NCB type weapons. The closest I've come to reconciling this is to consider the great range indiscriminate nature of such weapons. It would seem an owner is inherently brandishing such a weapon. If someone had a suitcase nuke in the basement, it would be almost as if they had a gun pointed at anyone in range.

 

[Lupinus]

I think anything which is by definition something which will take out many innocent people in the process of using it. IE a nuclear weapon. Even nerve gas you can decide where it goes, a nuke is still a nuke and the area will be effected by the nuke for a few thousand years.

Short of that you should be able to own anything oyu please. I could care less if you own a shiney f-16 with full complement of smart weapons. You have the money for it, you should be able to own it. And yeah yeah, n one "needs" it. At the time the consitituion was written no private citizen "needed" a fully armed and manned battleship either.

Also Maned-
Why do you say it is that far off due to ankles? To many antis a small pocket pistol 22 is to much.

 

[Fly320s]

What about objects other than guns and weapons?

Do we have a right to own a TV? Or a car? Or an animal? Real property?

If yes, how are those rights protected, if they are protected?

If no, then why not?

I'd like to take the discussion beyond guns and the 2nd amendment.

 

[Liberal Gun Nut]

I would say I have a right (which I refrain from exercising, so as to stay legal) to own really any type of infantry small-arm, like rifles, handguns, an M2HB. I guess it would also include RPGs and similar things. I would be happy to accept some regulation of my right, like the NFA, but unfortunately the NFA has closed off registration of MGs and my state bans all NFA weapons. Not that I even really want any of these things (I don't) but I would like to be able to have them.

 

[up_onus]

I think....
I have the right to own anything that provides me with the opportunity for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness....

And firearms.

As long as these "items" do not infring on the rights of others.

ok ok, im waking up from my fantasy land where the consititution of the United States of America is real...and people fight for not only the right of "free speech" but also the right to keep and bear arms...
Good thing the public doesnt need to be armed against an opressive government/war. It will be a sad day if that comes to fruition.

 

[crazed_ss]

Criminalizing the ownership of ANYTHING is just plain wrong

EDIT: Nevermind.. already brought up

 

[Rev. DeadCorpse]

Looking at the issue backwards. With the Second Amendment in mind, what power was given to government to restrict any arms ownership at all?

None. Zero. Zip. Nadda.

And yet, we've let them pass laws that usurp power not expressly given. Heck, we've even voted some of these government criminals back into power and praised their efforts at disarming us!

We deserve what we've gotten and what we will get. We deserve it because we didn't stand up and tell them "NO" when we had the chance. Now, it's too late. A majority of our fellow monkeys, and even gun owners, will argue over nuclear bombs rather than realize that much more is at stake here. Our freedoms are gone and voting/courts will do nothing to bring them back.

The first step towards fixing this is recognizing the illness. The second is being willing and able to administer the cure.

 

[Deathrider1579]

The problem most 2nd Amendment guys and girls run into is that the 2nd A never says the word GUN in fact it says ARMS! Arms include but are not limited to guns, they would also include grenades, RPGs, Tanks, Aircraft, bombs, missiles, artillery and every other weapon in use by the military from AD 0 till AD 999,999,999,999. (yes incl. Nukes and Chems) Bio weapons are probably too dangerous for ANYONE to own incl. the government as one "oops" could take out all of mankind but i am willing to be wrong about that.

The Constitution says this not I for the language speaks for its self. The ignorant people of this country have allowed their only method of maintaining freedom to be eroded almost to the point of irrelevancy.

-DR