An outsiders questions on US gun control.

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: nonspecific

"how does carrying a loaded weapon in a shopping mall or pizza joint benifit your society? "

www.breitbart.com...

"driver was sitting in his car on Milwaukee Avenue, watching people shuffle back and forth in front of the car just before midnight. As he watched, a gunman raised a weapon and began to fire, so the driver then sprang into action.
According to the Chicago Tribune, 22-year-old Everardo Custodio allegedly “began firing into the crowd,” and the Uber driver fired back. He fired a total of “six shots at Custodio,” striking him three times and wounding him in “the shin, thigh, and lower back.” The attempted mass shooting was over and the the only injuries were to Custodio."

I don't know where you live; I'd have guessed the UK.

The situation in the US is so remarkably different than it is in the UK or Australia that it doesn't surprise me that people in those lands can't understand the US situation. Suffice it to say that the problem is at least two fold. First, no one knows or can have any idea who is circulating around them in public spaces; some are "bad guys" and they carry concealed firearms with intent to do harm and they don't care anything about "laws" regulating firearms. Second, in the US, there isn't a cop or a camera on every corner. The cops are spread very thin and essentially operate on an "on call as needed" basis. They can't "protect" the "good citizens"; and they've come to expect and will even tell you so if you ask, that protecting yourself from violent crime is the citizen's duty, not the cops simply because they can't be everywhere all the time.

Its a far different situation in the US.

As I said in the OP I am in the UK and yes I simply do not understand the need to carry a loaded handgun other than to protect myself from someone else with a loaded hand gun.

If you got a straight 10 years in prison for carring in public how many people would still carry?

That is why not many people get shot in the UK, it's not the lack of fire arms its the trouble you get in for bieng caught with one without reason.

Then you get into the whole does the punishment fit the crime argument. 20 years ago during the crazy drug period in the US (I'm talking hard stuff like Cocaine, Crack, etc) we implemented the three strikes policy in many areas of the country. As a result thousands of people are in jail for "non violent" drug crimes and that's one of the next frontiers of the SJW movement. Now those people are victims of racism and "why should anyone get life in jail for having some coc aine on them?" Well, why should anyone spend ten years in jail if they are caught carrying a weapon because they live in a rough neighborhood, May have been robbed several times and just want to protect themselves? Are we gonna throw those people in jail for a decade?

Answer me this question and I will respond. I'm not being combative or argumentative, just trying to keep this debate going civily.

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: nonspecific
Although the information is valuable it does however relate to the illigal ownership of a firearm and not as I suggested the carring of one in public without good reason(something I know many will say is a right but just seems odd to me.

It is the same thing. Illegal possession also means carrying one in public without a permit or by not observing your state's particular carry laws.

I interpreted his question as one of why allow even legally licensed carriers the legal option to carry in public at all....anywhere.

Yes, that is the general attitude among anti self defense advocates; why should anyone be trusted to possess the ability to defend themselves?

It isn't a legal question but, a philosophical one. The conversation must eventually devolve into specific examples and hypothetical tests upon the validity of the principal of pacifism.

Should martial artists register their limbs?

Should criminals possessing martial arts abilities have their limbs surgically removed?

etc...

I could be wrong in this but I am pretty sure that if you recieve a certain level of martial arts training in the UK then you do indeed need to register yourself as your arms and legs are actually deemed leathal weapons and you may need to justify your actions in any incident that leads to violence.

Correct, and that is with people who are presumably well trained on self-control.

Now imagine that same logic being applied to the average (untrained and less controlled) person in an automobile. By that ratiocinative justification, should anyone be allowed to drive a car? Or more accurately, should a car be registered as a deadly weapon?

If we decide to circumvent societal solutions and replace them with fiat ones, we confuse government with society. Therein lies the fallacy of "common sense" as it is presented.

It is simply not possible to protect everyone from everyone. Each person must protect themselves (and others) in order for non-totalitarian society to exist as we know it.

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: nonspecific
As I said in the OP the issue was not the owning of a gun or multiple ones but carring them in public without good reason.

You do not need a reason to exercise your rights.

This again is something I simply fail to understand, the issue of Rights.

I see this a lot for US members, I often wonder as to the way the world changed over the years.

The people that created these rights could not have forseen drug and gang culture when this "right" was given, does not law need to evolve with society?

So, I guess the pirate culture of the preceding century (17th century into the early 18th century) doesn't count in their calculus. The largest variable in their calculus was YOUR government to be honest. The British empire of King George III that attempted to tax and otherwise control (militarily even) the remote colonies. The attempt to confiscate our firearms, being forced to quarter your troops in our homes with no compensation or permission. Therefore, I am not surprised you do not understand our culture and unique history.

This isn't a slight or flippant answer, but an honest one.

It certainly is not a judgement of your culture on my part, as I said I am glad that you have the legal right to own firearms.

The question was how you would feel if you lived in a society where you were not allowed to carry one in day to day society without severe conciquences?

Basing this on the assumption your fellow citizens also adhered to this and the need for self defence with a firearm was drastically reduced.

Well, now that's the rub isn't it? The assumption that everyone would follow the law. The problem I see with that is that it is an impossible assumption because it would NEVER happen in real life. Even in your own country, there are people that do not follow that gun control law. The disconnect is that your country is not as densely packed, is surrounded by a natural water border that severely curtails illegal immigration and trade, and is not globally associated with the idea of, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." In many (but not all) cases those poor are criminals. Case in point was when Fidel Castro opened the jails in Cuba and sent the freed convicts to the United States (Florida) to live. An influx of criminals were welcomed into our country in that instance. Is that the only reason, no, of course not. It is but one in a long list of events that make our history unique to those of Europe and England that shunned their criminal elements, that our country welcomed.

With the banning of alcohol in the early 20th century (via a legal constitutional amendment) it encouraged and allowed organized crime to thrive (and oddly enough was the birth of NASCAR). Once repealed (since it dd not work at all), those criminal elements didn't just dry up and go away. They adapted their business model to include heavier drugs and prostitution. Much of that business is also done by the growing gang culture, and gave rise to music that glorifies that life as well into the mainstream.

In summary, we are two different countries. As two different families will not have the same rules in their homes, or punishments for breaking those rules, we should not impose our house rules on other houses IMO.

a reply to: nonspecific

OK.

For most people who view firearms restrictions as "reasonable" and "necessary," they often also view voting as an absolute right to be fettered by nothing, similar to how the most fanatic of gun rights folks feel about their right to keep and bear.

So try this thought exercise:

For every restriction I think a gun owner should have to put up with, would I be OK with it's equivalent on voters before they could vote?

a reply to: ketsuko

You expect a voter to prove that they are who they claim to be!?!?
I do.
No photo ID, no vote.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: nonspecific

OK.

For most people who view firearms restrictions as "reasonable" and "necessary," they often also view voting as an absolute right to be fettered by nothing, similar to how the most fanatic of gun rights folks feel about their right to keep and bear.

So try this thought exercise:

For every restriction I think a gun owner should have to put up with, would I be OK with it's equivalent on voters before they could vote?

I am not sure I am able to follow this line of thought?

Could you expand on this please.

originally posted by: nonspecific

If you got a straight 10 years in prison for carring in public how many people would still carry?

Just every criminal who does not obey the gun laws anyway. Every crazy who looks at the sign which says, "Gun Free Zone!" and says, "Ah, unarmed victims inside!" Criminals don't obey gun laws. It's already illegal to shoot people or use a gun as a threat to commit a crime, either of which will get you far more than ten years in prison.

a reply to: nonspecific

You've been here long enough to know already what the response would be. This is nothing new.

You knew and you did it anyway.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: nonspecific

You've been here long enough to know already what the response would be. This is nothing new.

You knew and you did it anyway.

He is addressing the sociological aspect rather than constitutional one and I think he is being honest. This topic can't be discussed too much in my opinion.

I think that both fronts must be constantly defended if only for the sake of the most important one.

"There is no substitute for a militant freedom. The only alternative is submission and slavery."

-Calvin Coolidge

a reply to: Bluntone22

I carry and I know how to use it in defense of myself and others. I don't need a "safe place" because wherever I am is a "safe place"

a reply to: nonspecific

"If you got a straight 10 years in prison for carrying in public how many people would still carry? "

I entirely understand your point, but.................I can also understand just how difficult it is for folks in the UK to "get it".

Look, 10 years, for the typical US criminal type is.......nothing! Hard for you to understand, but there are literally MILLIONS of ex-convicts in what we call "general population", i.e., out of prison on parole and for those people, to be in possession of a firearm is to mean a revocation of their parole and a trip back to prison. A HUGE percentage of these parolees, the first thing they do when they get released is head to the underground black market and buy a gun. Realistically speaking, they don't have much choice. When they're released, they go back to their old neighborhood and there's bunches of folks there looking to kill them. If they don't have a "piece" and don't strut with the bravado, they'll be capped within a few weeks of release.

So the way it goes, they get released; they return to the 'hood. They get back into the drug business; they need money, they knock over a liquor store or shoot someone in the neighborhood park for their new tennis shoes; sell the shoes to buy drugs........live the high life until they're killed or caught by the cops and sent back to do some more time in prison. Then they get released and restart the cycle of the life of crime. And this is repeated millions of times over, year after year in every city in the US.

How about this......you want to learn about this and experience it first hand? Here's the tour itinerary.

Fly from London to New York.
Take a bus or cab to the nearest Greyhound bus station.
Catch a bus from New York to Detroit.
Take a cab from the bus station to the Detroit Downtown Metro Hotel......rooms are anywhere from $35.00 to $50.00 a night. ($50.00 a night gets you a night stand and a T.V.). After check in, you can go out on the town! Across the street is a local bar/tavern and pool hall. You can drink cheap, score drugs, play pool (billiards), have a burger, pick up a lady of the night. And you can enjoy this vacation for as long as...........
you can stay alive!

But wait, there's more.........if you like, take a bus to Florida, say Tampa/St. Petersburg. Stay at a hotel in the suburbs. Go out at night to the local bar/tavern in the supposedly safe, upscale suburbs. Of course, you may get shot in the head at midnight in the parking lot waiting for a cab.

So, really.......it doesn't matter where you go in the US. The criminal element is omnipresent. Just waiting for a tourist with a wallet full of credit cards and cash.

Ten years...............you're a funny man.

It used to be much as you described in the past. The problem is that the criminals don't obey the law and carry guns anyway. Laws don't stop crimes from happening. They only give you a way to prosecute after the fact. If strict laws and severe punishment stopped crime there would be no such thing as murder.

The sad truth is that when a state passes a conceal carry law the violent crime rate drops. Of course the anti gun nuts always find an article written by another anti gun nut to show that is not the case. But it is true none the less. The simple truth is that when the bad guy knows he is the only one with a gun he will take a chance robbing you, not knowing if you have a thousand dollars in your wallet or ten. He doesn't care, its all profit for him. But when he knows there is a strong possibility that you have a gun too, that ten dollars doesn't look as good as it did before. His risk/reward ratio just changed dramatically. Of course, it takes some of the slower criminals a while to figure that out. And there are the hard core criminals who don't care.

Of course the right to bear arms extends well beyond personal protection, but in every day life that is where people focus their attention. Terror attacks on US soil are increasing and according to the terrorists are just getting started. The odd whacko who decides to shoot up a public place is also a threat. And it is no coincidence that these types of crimes happen in what are referred to as legislated "gun free zones". Obviously, they are not gun free or the shootings would not happen. What that legislation guaranteed is that the bad guys will be the only ones with guns when the shooting starts. Fortunately, politicians are coming to their senses and realizing that their efforts at creating gun free zones have failed miserably.

Personally, I think it is shameful that the people of one of the greatest nations on earth have to arm themselves against criminals, terrorists, and the ever present government run amok.

a reply to: nonspecific

Gun laws are useless. They are political grandstanding. The people that obey the gun laws are the people that you don't have to worry about in the first place. We have laws in place that cover any crime that you can commit with a gun.

As it has been stated time and time again " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Permits, licenses and mental health have been brought up in these posts. My problem is who determines who gets a permit? Who sets the qualifications and determines who can have a license? Who sets the parameters that determines who has mental health issues that prevents them from owning a firearm?
When I took Psychology in college a few years ago, there was a group who believe that anybody wanting to own a firearm for self-defense had a mental health issue.

I'd have no problem with having to take training to be able carry a handgun. My problem is who defines the training? Who defines the qualifications of the people doing the training? Will the trainers be required to carry liability insurance?

This may sound extreme, but, I had an aircraft mechanic's license for almost thirty years. I could have picked-up $1000-$2000 a month doing minor maintenance on small planes, but, if I changed the oil in a plane on Tuesday and the wing fell off on Friday, I would be sued. The cost of the insurance per month would have been more than I could have made in a month. Right now groups are trying to sue gun manufacturers and sellers for crimes that were committed using legally manufactured and purchased firearms. The idea is to make firearms too expensive to be purchased.

Therefore, I am against any and all restrictions on firearm ownership and possession. It comes down to, if we give an inch the anti-gun nuts will take a mile.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: nonspecific

You've been here long enough to know already what the response would be. This is nothing new.

You knew and you did it anyway.

I suppose I did in a way but as I said it was not a question of ownership but that of carrying loaded firearms whilst going about your day to day business.

I suppose I misunderstood the levels of violence and crime in some places in the US but given that I have never witnessed it is it not somewhat understandable?

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: nonspecific

Gun laws are useless. They are political grandstanding. The people that obey the gun laws are the people that you don't have to worry about in the first place. We have laws in place that cover any crime that you can commit with a gun.

As it has been stated time and time again " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Permits, licenses and mental health have been brought up in these posts. My problem is who determines who gets a permit? Who sets the qualifications and determines who can have a license? Who sets the parameters that determines who has mental health issues that prevents them from owning a firearm?
When I took Psychology in college a few years ago, there was a group who believe that anybody wanting to own a firearm for self-defense had a mental health issue.

I'd have no problem with having to take training to be able carry a handgun. My problem is who defines the training? Who defines the qualifications of the people doing the training? Will the trainers be required to carry liability insurance?

This may sound extreme, but, I had an aircraft mechanic's license for almost thirty years. I could have picked-up $1000-$2000 a month doing minor maintenance on small planes, but, if I changed the oil in a plane on Tuesday and the wing fell off on Friday, I would be sued. The cost of the insurance per month would have been more than I could have made in a month. Right now groups are trying to sue gun manufacturers and sellers for crimes that were committed using legally manufactured and purchased firearms. The idea is to make firearms too expensive to be purchased.

Therefore, I am against any and all restrictions on firearm ownership and possession. It comes down to, if we give an inch the anti-gun nuts will take a mile.

I have seen your opinion mirrored a lot and I find it interesting both in this question and other social questions in the US.

There seems to be a big issue with "rights" and the fear that someone will determine what your rights are and who will decide what you can and cannot do.

Are you really so afraid of what your elected government will do and how they will abuse that power? what is it that is so frightening about society making desicions?

Does it not worry you that others also have the same freedoms and abuse them so badly and create such an enviroment that you would need to be armed to feel safe?

As I say this is all alien to me and a genuine question.

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: nonspecific
As I said in the OP the issue was not the owning of a gun or multiple ones but carring them in public without good reason.

You do not need a reason to exercise your rights.

This again is something I simply fail to understand, the issue of Rights.

I see this a lot for US members, I often wonder as to the way the world changed over the years.

The people that created these rights could not have forseen drug and gang culture when this "right" was given, does not law need to evolve with society?

Oh, I forgot to address your wild misconception on the issue of the origin of these rights. In the United States, according to our supreme laws (The United States Constitution and Bill of Rights) these rights are NOT GIVEN by the government. See, that is a common misconception by many. As it clearly states in our Declaration of Independence,

...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

In modern language, this means that we are all born with these inherent rights....they are granted by our creator (whoever that creator is for any individual, it does not specify a specific deity). Governments can only protect, i.e. secure, those rights for the people.

The Bill of rights expands and codifies the "...among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..." by identifying some of them individually, like the right to keep and bear arms (the topic of this discussion). This indicates the government is supposed to protect these rights from infringement. In this particular amendment, the phrase "well regulated" means well trained (the 18th century definition of that phrase), not to impose laws to regulate (our modern definition of that word) the exercise of these rights.

I just wanted to clear up that misconception of your where you stated that when this "right" was given. In your country, perhaps the government grants your rights, and for you that might be normal. But in the United States, that is not the case, as I have explained prior.

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: nonspecific

You've been here long enough to know already what the response would be. This is nothing new.

You knew and you did it anyway.

I suppose I misunderstood the levels of violence and crime in some places in the US but given that I have never witnessed it is it not somewhat understandable?

You're coming across as someone who lives in a crime-free environment with no need to defend yourself. It's certainly true that the UK has less crime, but does that mean you don't have any? There are over 200 countries in the world. The US ranks 10th in "Murders with firearms" and the UK ranks 44th. That's a whole lot more than 75% of the countries in the world. How did the UK get to be 44th if guns are illegal?

And in both countries, though the population thinks otherwise, crime has been going down over the last few years. But to think that this is because our governments have passed decrees is naive.

Oh, and all those countries that have vastly more "murders with firearms" than even the US, those countries that rank 1-9. In the vast majority of those countries the law is the same as the UK or worse. No firearms allowed. Now if laws do the trick, how is that even possible?

Source

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: nonspecific
As I said in the OP the issue was not the owning of a gun or multiple ones but carring them in public without good reason.

You do not need a reason to exercise your rights.

This again is something I simply fail to understand, the issue of Rights.

I see this a lot for US members, I often wonder as to the way the world changed over the years.

The people that created these rights could not have forseen drug and gang culture when this "right" was given, does not law need to evolve with society?

Oh, I forgot to address your wild misconception on the issue of the origin of these rights. In the United States, according to our supreme laws (The United States Constitution and Bill of Rights) these rights are NOT GIVEN by the government. See, that is a common misconception by many. As it clearly states in our Declaration of Independence,

...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

In modern language, this means that we are all born with these inherent rights....they are granted by our creator (whoever that creator is for any individual, it does not specify a specific deity). Governments can only protect, i.e. secure, those rights for the people.

The Bill of rights expands and codifies the "...among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..." by identifying some of them individually, like the right to keep and bear arms (the topic of this discussion). This indicates the government is supposed to protect these rights from infringement. In this particular amendment, the phrase "well regulated" means well trained (the 18th century definition of that phrase), not to impose laws to regulate (our modern definition of that word) the exercise of these rights.

I just wanted to clear up that misconception of your where you stated that when this "right" was given. In your country, perhaps the government grants your rights, and for you that might be normal. But in the United States, that is not the case, as I have explained prior.

I did explain from the start that I was an outsider so any misconceptions I may have could be put down to simple misunderstanding of a very complex country.

So in laymans terms are you saying that all Americans have certain rights because some people hundreds of years ago said so and then wrote it down?

I do not wish to cause offense here but that almost sounds like a religion to me?

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: nonspecific
As I said in the OP the issue was not the owning of a gun or multiple ones but carring them in public without good reason.

You do not need a reason to exercise your rights.

This again is something I simply fail to understand, the issue of Rights.

I see this a lot for US members, I often wonder as to the way the world changed over the years.

The people that created these rights could not have forseen drug and gang culture when this "right" was given, does not law need to evolve with society?

Oh, I forgot to address your wild misconception on the issue of the origin of these rights. In the United States, according to our supreme laws (The United States Constitution and Bill of Rights) these rights are NOT GIVEN by the government. See, that is a common misconception by many. As it clearly states in our Declaration of Independence,

...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

In modern language, this means that we are all born with these inherent rights....they are granted by our creator (whoever that creator is for any individual, it does not specify a specific deity). Governments can only protect, i.e. secure, those rights for the people.

The Bill of rights expands and codifies the "...among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..." by identifying some of them individually, like the right to keep and bear arms (the topic of this discussion). This indicates the government is supposed to protect these rights from infringement. In this particular amendment, the phrase "well regulated" means well trained (the 18th century definition of that phrase), not to impose laws to regulate (our modern definition of that word) the exercise of these rights.

I just wanted to clear up that misconception of your where you stated that when this "right" was given. In your country, perhaps the government grants your rights, and for you that might be normal. But in the United States, that is not the case, as I have explained prior.

I did explain from the start that I was an outsider so any misconceptions I may have could be put down to simple misunderstanding of a very complex country.

So in laymans terms are you saying that all Americans have certain rights because some people hundreds of years ago said so and then wrote it down?

I do not wish to cause offense here but that almost sounds like a religion to me?

I was, honestly, trying to inform you of how our two forms of government differ in some very basic and important ways. Yet, you seem to want to twist that into some form of alternate debate, and derail your own thread?I will try not to take that as a slight against our country and our citizenry sir. The FOUNDERS of our country established these supreme laws. These laws, which are not immutable, can be changed given the proper legal course of action. Is it difficult to do this, yes, for very good reason.

As for the governing body in the UK, seems you still have a royal family, which, history describes as being granted by divine order, does it not? So, to me, that sounds like a religion that was established in your country going back many many more years than the United States was even in existence.

If I were you, I would look more closely at your own form of government in that respect before making any personal analysis of others form of government.

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: nonspecific
As I said in the OP the issue was not the owning of a gun or multiple ones but carring them in public without good reason.

You do not need a reason to exercise your rights.

This again is something I simply fail to understand, the issue of Rights.

I see this a lot for US members, I often wonder as to the way the world changed over the years.

The people that created these rights could not have forseen drug and gang culture when this "right" was given, does not law need to evolve with society?

Oh, I forgot to address your wild misconception on the issue of the origin of these rights. In the United States, according to our supreme laws (The United States Constitution and Bill of Rights) these rights are NOT GIVEN by the government. See, that is a common misconception by many. As it clearly states in our Declaration of Independence,

...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

In modern language, this means that we are all born with these inherent rights....they are granted by our creator (whoever that creator is for any individual, it does not specify a specific deity). Governments can only protect, i.e. secure, those rights for the people.

The Bill of rights expands and codifies the "...among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..." by identifying some of them individually, like the right to keep and bear arms (the topic of this discussion). This indicates the government is supposed to protect these rights from infringement. In this particular amendment, the phrase "well regulated" means well trained (the 18th century definition of that phrase), not to impose laws to regulate (our modern definition of that word) the exercise of these rights.

I just wanted to clear up that misconception of your where you stated that when this "right" was given. In your country, perhaps the government grants your rights, and for you that might be normal. But in the United States, that is not the case, as I have explained prior.

So in laymans terms are you saying that all Americans have certain rights because some people hundreds of years ago said so and then wrote it down?

Yes. Precisely. We've discussed this before and recently. From that discussion which is here:

Now, I don't even believe in "The Creator," but I understand where they were coming from here. They were trying to say that "rights" transcend the people making them up because if you say people made them up, then they can make up anything, and YOUR idea of what constitutes my rights means nothing compared to MY idea of what constitutes my rights. After all, "we all put our pants on the same way" and all that. So it was an attempt to "step up" the conversation beyond a bar room brawl argument.

The problem is that basing rights on simple consensus is a dangerous way to go because "the crowd" can be made to believe anything. If we were to place gun rights to a consensus these days, a whole lot of people would vote "No" and be completely self-righteous about it believing they were taking the moral high ground. It's only because we have several generations of gun rights implanted in our history that there are enough people to ensure these rights are maintained, even though they have been eroded by governments large and small to the point of absurdity in some locations. After all, California has very strict regulations. And in Europe, the right to "keep and bear arms" is non-existent.

And recently we had a large number of Yale students, supposedly among our best and brightest, vote to rescind the First Amendment, which declares free speech and free religion to be rights. Now we can all complain about that and say the poll "wasn't fair" and all, but the plain fact is the first amendment is pretty straightforward and the fact that so many "educated" people failed to recognize it, when they ought to have it memorized, is pretty scary, indeed. But the bottom line is that we cannot trust the present electorate to maintain the rights established for us a couple hundred years ago, so we cannot afford to put any of these rights up to a vote. We just have to hang onto the rights that have been enumerated. So right now the "higher authority" is the Constitution and I don't really care whether you invoke some sort of Deity for the source of that or not, but that's how they justified it at the time. All I want to ensure is that we don't get the idea that we can start over. As far as I'm concerned it's a done deal.