Those are not God-given rights, they are granted by the U.S. Constitution to all citizens.

I also don't think anyone is asking for "unfettered" ownership, everyone on this site (and most other places) agree that owning a gun comes with rules and responsibility. The same goes for public speaking.

The Bill of Rights (Amendments 1 thru 10 of the U.S. Constitution) does not "grant" rights. It prohibits the government from abridging certain rights assumed by the founders to predate government. God-given is the "short-hand" used to convey the universality of the "right".

As long as we always talk in absolutes --
I can absolutely have a gun anywhere, anytime, and use it anyway I want as long as I don't hurt someone who is innocent
and
I can absolutely say anything I want, anytime, anywhere as long as I don't hurt anyone who is innocent
or I can absolutely do anything I want anywhere, anytime, anyway as long as I don't hurt anyone who is innocent
-- makes civil society a little tough. In fact, makes civil society impossible because these viewpoints are selfish.
It amazes me when I read posts stating the Plain Honest Men (read the book) who met to fix the Articles of Confederation and compromised their way to the Constitution of the United States would write something so inflexible.

Do I have a car? Yeah. It's inspected and licensed and so am I.
Do I have a business? Well, no but if I did it would be licensed
Do I have a profession? Yeah, I'm a teacher and I've been inspected and I'm "certificated".
Do I have a dog? Yes, she is inspected and licensed.

Why do I submit to these intrusions? because it makes the society in which I live better for all.

You are wrong, grasshopper. Whatever is granted by the government may be taken away by the government. The framers of the Constitution all believed, no, knew that these were

"endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness . . ."

It's on paper, signed by elected representatives of the 13 United States. There is nothing that says that these were originated with the government. Instead, our founding documents clearly state that the rights already resided with the people. The people delegated the rights they already had to the states. The states and the people, through the constitution delegated some of those rights to the national government.

The 9th Amendment states:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Not all rights are enumerated, therefore the constitution (and therefore the government) is not the grantor of rights.

The 10th Amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This says unambiguously that the rights don't come from the Constitution, and if the Constitution doesn't give the government the right to do something in writing, then those rights are retained by the people, each of us, unless we have given this right to the state in which we live.

Read the documents, grasshopper. Read the Federalist Papers. Find out what the intent was. And fear any government that claims to the fountain of rights - it will one day take them away when it becomes expedient.

As the Federalist is a collection of essays arguing in favor of the Constitution's ratification, is it on its own a good resource for discerning the intent of that document?:confused:

I think Dozer makes a good point. One can do a remarkable number of things, if they're willing to do the paperwork. For example, BATF has procedures that would permit an individual to manufacture explosives ( LINK ).

Perhaps the problem is a breakdown in the consensus of what actually makes the society better for all. If a society moves from one that emphasizes independent action and responsibility toward something else, then the consensus will also change. We can see this with firearms. Accepted practice in the early 1960's and today seems very different, at least from my perspective. Unfortunately, each group views a given problem through the lens of their particular views of what improves the society - and I'm not sure that any amount of discussion can overcome the barrier.

I'm under the impression that the shift away from independent action is ongoing, and perhaps accelerating. If true, that may indicate further pressure on individual rights - whether God given, Constitutional, or otherwise. I cannot say I like the trend, but that doesn't change anything.

Any of the writings of the framers are good. Both pro and con. It is important to read the Constitution through the optics of those who wrote it. There are those who believe that it is a "living, breathing" document. I disagree. For if that were true, that document could mean anything you want it to, thus becoming meaningless. If they had meant it to change meaning over time, they wouldn't have allowed for amendments. Instead, it would have ended with "Whatever." :D

Did this consensus ever truly exist? If so, when and where?

IMO, much of the rancor in American political, social, and cultural discourse comes from the complaint that "things aint the way they used to be." Yet, what is our collective understanding of "the way things used to be"?

It is important to read the Constitution through the optics of those who wrote it and why they wrote it. They were tasked to fix the Articles of Confederation that had some very basic flaws . . .
No single person in a position of leadership
No power to raise operating funds
No means of compromise. All the states had to agree to anything and everything. (NY was a bitch when it came to proposals that threatened their financial supremacy, RI was always sweating that they were gonna get ripped cuz they were so little, VA and PA complained they were getting gyped cuz they were bigger, SC was always bearing a watchful eye on the Slave issue.)

Not me, it has a raspy wheeze sometimes and a racing heartbeat too but it is very much alive for me. Not 'YOU' but "WE". And therein lies it's meaningfulness. 'Whatever" would have made High School more fun. But they did end it with amendments. Not a process for amending, but specific amendments -- changes, additions. Ben Franklin, was pleased to answer the question regarding the sun on the speakers chair as "rising not setting" when the convention closed. And when asked what was created didn't someone say something like " A Republic, if you can keep it"?

Perhaps the word consensus does not provide the right nuance. Maybe the fields of history, anthropology, or sociology could provide it.

In essence, societies come to some point where most people shrug, grumble, and conclude they would rather go along with the situation as it is rather than fight. For lack of a better term, I've used consensus.

We saw this with the original constitution. No doubt, some Tories did a lot of grumbling. Likewise, there was some sort of consensus in 1866 - after one side decided that surrender was preferable to continutation of the conflict. We have a workable consensus today, with rare exceptions duly noted. And, we will know when consensus fails because open conflict (and not merely with words!) will engulf the society.


That would be an important element. Another element, perhaps even more substantial, would be those who say "Things would be so much better, if only we changed...something."

Just as you suggest, American society seems to have experienced the interplay between these opposing forces since inception. It is my perception that we're seeing more interaction between views today than was the case in the early 1960's and late 1950's. This begs the question of how to quantify, measure, and compare such things. I don't know. But perhaps an historian could illuminate the path? ;)

Those rights are neither detailed, nor inalienable.

As soon as you allow "reasonable" restrictions and controls, you have lost control. You might struggle along for a while, but eventually, the privileges you enjoy will be further and further restricted and taxed. Look at what remains of private firearms ownership in England.

Would you trade all of your freedoms to make society better for all?

Maybe you would trade a few of them?

What if the ones you would trade do not coincide with the ones I would surrender?

Would you trade your freedom for security?

TR

From my reading of your post, a more suitable word might be "hegemony."

With respect, this interpretation of history is deeply flawed and has been thoroughly discredited in both American and European historiography. Someone has always been pissed off about something and has sought to change the existing order. That these challenges are constantly overlooked testifies to the enduring political power of historical memory--and amnesia.
To me, the first question is "From where does this perception come?" To what degree is it rooted in your education, your personal experiences, your family history, your socialization and acculturation, your political views, and your own frame of mind as you journey through your life?FWIW, I'm not a big proponent of a quantitative approach to history. History is a humanity, not a social science. Thinking in terms of "quantity" too often leads to a trade off in which grappling with questions centering around the complexities of the human condition suffers.

Moreover, I am ever more skeptical of the propriety and utility of using "history" as the foundation of policy decisions and political choices.

YMMV.

Short and to the point, well said Green Light