Can the government force you to exercise a "Right"?

[Redbirds Fan]

The right to bear arms grants you permission to have a gun. It does not in any way limit the ability of the government to compel you to own one.

If a new law was enacted tomorrow that said every household must have a gun for protection that would be ridiculous but in no way would it infringe upon your 2nd amendment rights.

You don't see police and military personnel picketing in the street because they have lost their right to bear arms? But they have been compelled to carry?

Not sure why we keep going back and forth here. Seems like this is obvious.

I think there is an interesting argument here, but I am missing it. Police and military aren't compelled to carry, they volunteer.

What rights in particular are you concerned with?

[Ken]

Police and military aren't compelled to carry

Sure they are, it is part of the requirements for their job.

[B-Fly]

Sure they are, it is part of the requirements for their job.

But they don't have to choose a job/career that would require them to carry a gun, just like folks can presumably elect not to drive, and therefore aren't compelled to get a driver's license, and people aren't compelled to speak.

Ultimately, this is semantic, though.

As I've argued many times, we live in a representative democratic republic. By our residency and/or citizenship, we agree (in fact we're compelled) to live by the US Constitution, federal laws and regulations, state constitutions, laws and regulations, and local laws and regulations, all brought to us by our elected representatives. Our elected representatives (and in some cases, their appointees) can impose obligations, responsibilities and requirements on citizens or residents, just as they can create "rights", entitlements and privileges. When President Obama signed the PPACA delivered to him by Congress, it included an obligation or "mandate" on citizens to support a government-sponsored health insurance program that our representatives created to serve broad societal interests around health insurance and health care. The US Supreme Court upheld that mandate under Congress's constitutional taxing power. (Taxing also being an obligation on citizens or residents as determined by their elected representatives.)

So we're over-philosophizing on this "rights" thing.

[Mithrandir]

This thread makes my head spin.

[chancellor]

If I choose not to carry a gun - there is no penalty.... and no one cares

However, should I choose not to carry insurance I am now penalized for that action. The government is compelling me by force of fine to buy a product I may not want. Again, I am not personally certain that medical care is a "right" as it is not specifically stated as one in our countries founding documents.

BG, I agree with a lot of what you express, but have to disagree with you on insurance. You have the right to travel (Redbirds or B-Fly can quote the SCOTUS decisions that support that better than I can), but do not have the right to drive a car. As a result, the state has a great deal more leeway on what can be required to drive than own a gun (or practice your faith or speak in public or other rights).

[Ken]

But they don't have to choose a job/career that would require them to carry a gun, just like folks can presumably elect not to drive, and therefore aren't compelled to get a driver's license, and people aren't compelled to speak.

The point was that being compelled to do something does not take away your right to perform that action. What we define as "compelled" is somewhat arbitrary, in the original point it was a "fine" being introduced if you don't comply by purchasing insurance. In the counter example those individuals would lose their job if they refused to carry.

But the overriding point is that just because you have a right to do something, doesn't inherently mean you have a right to do the opposite (or not do that thing).

[Gregg]

The right to bear arms grants you permission to have a gun. It does not in any way limit the ability of the government to compel you to own one.

If a new law was enacted tomorrow that said every household must have a gun for protection that would be ridiculous but in no way would it infringe upon your 2nd amendment rights.

You don't see police and military personnel picketing in the street because they have lost their right to bear arms? But they have been compelled to carry?

Not sure why we keep going back and forth here. Seems like this is obvious.

A person's right to bear arms is their right to own and use guns, as a means of defense. It is a legal right not a natural one. It is like the right to vote. If you force someone to vote you are taking away their freedom to choose. Forcing someone to own a gun would be infringing on their right to choose.

One of the problems I have with the argument of allowing people to be without insurance is that they know they can walk into the ER and get "free" care. Except it is not free. Most of us are paying for it.

Should we have the right to choose to go without insurance? Yes, but with that choice comes the consequence of no care when tragedy strikes. That is a much easier statement to make to the faceless masses than it is to look in the eyes of real people and deny them care. I sure don't want that.

Maybe the government should set up a non-profit or small profit insurance company that competes with the private sector.

[Gregg]

Sure they are, it is part of the requirements for their job.

I agree. Most military and police are forced to carry a gun. It is a requirement of the job. If you don't want to be forced to carry a gun in that job exercise your right not to apply for that job. That is your freedom to choose. That has nothing to do with our right to bear arms.

[Ken]

If you force someone to vote you are taking away their freedom to choose. Forcing someone to own a gun would be infringing on their right to choose.

Seems like you are just restating baldgriffs assertion that rights implictly must include choice. Is that just your opinion / understanding of the word or do you have anything backing that up?

[baldgriff]

Not speaking for Gregg -

but in my mind, if I dont have the power to choose how I act on a right - then it is not my right as the government gets the final say.

Bearing arms, is my right, I can choose to or not to. If the government required everyone to bear - then there is no actual right as the action is demanded by the government. You dont have the ability to say no - for fear of some government reprisal. Once the action is forced, and I lose the power of the decision the right has been usurped.

[heyelander]

Not speaking for Gregg -

but in my mind, if I dont have the power to choose how I act on a right - then it is not my right as the government gets the final say.

Bearing arms, is my right, I can choose to or not to. If the government required everyone to bear - then there is no actual right as the action is demanded by the government. You dont have the ability to say no - for fear of some government reprisal. Once the action is forced, and I lose the power of the decision the right has been usurped.

I think the right sets a line or a minimum. You have the right to bear arms, so the government can't stop you from doing it. It says nothing about going past that line. There's no right to NOT bear arms. There's no right to decide if you want to or not. Like the amendment says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." So the government can't infringe on your right to keep and bear... you have the right to do it, they can't stop you. There's nothing about them not making you. There's nothing about The choice to bear arms or not shall not be infringed... it's a line in the sand. Compelling people might make the minimum standard of allowing you to bear arms moot, but it doesn't negate it. You still have that right if sometime in the future the gov't were to decide that compulsory armament was not necessary.

What is this conversation actually about... I feel like it's a mith conversation where we will get the actual topic and a key piece of information around page 33...

[B-Fly]

Maybe the government should set up a non-profit or small profit insurance company that competes with the private sector.

This still doesn't solve the problem if it allows some people to choose not to procure insurance and then to walk into the hospital with a medical emergency. I certainly am not morally comfortable asking or encouraging hospitals to turn someone with a medical emergency away for being uninsured and/or too poor for private pay. Ultimately, as someone else mentioned, nationalizing health insurance, like with Medicare-for-all, practically leaps out as the best solution to our nation's health insurance problems. Just as with basic K-12 education, it's morally problematic to offer or deny health care to individuals in our society based on ability to pay.

[Ken]

I think the right sets a line or a minimum. You have the right to bear arms, so the government can't stop you from doing it. It says nothing about going past that line. There's no right to NOT bear arms. There's no right to decide if you want to or not.

Exactly correct. Thanks for stating this so clearly, something I obviously failed to do.

[B-Fly]

What is this conversation actually about... I feel like it's a mith conversation where we will get the actual topic and a key piece of information around page 33...

It's about the PPACA (Obamacare) mandate, which I sussed out in Post 4 and baldgriff confirmed.

[baldgriff]

What is this conversation actually about...

Partly Im grappling with "what is a right" (and all that is packed into it).

The other part is that when ACA was passed, part of the reasoning behind it was that "healthcare is a right for everyone". Im starting to think that line was a pile of BS. I do have concerns regarding Big Pharma/Insurance companies and how they have impacted our health care system. The idea that forcing every person to select an insurance plan - because the person has a right to healthcare just seems backwards in my mind.

If it is my right - I should get to choose how use it. It is the same thing as the government telling people that they have to "bear arms".