LA Times Op-Ed: "There's No Unlimited Right To Bear Arms"

[paul alan]

" ....Even Justice Antonin Scalia, whose opinion in Heller is a gun rights landmark, had to agree with 2nd Amendment framer James Madison that the right to bear arms has limits.


http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ellis-gun-control-nullification-20130908,0,7673462.story


"Ain't no dumb eyetalian gonna take my guns from me ...."


:(

[paul alan]

"...There is an opinion abroad in the land that the right to bear arms is unlimited, an absolute right, like the right to vote or the right to a fair trial.

This heartfelt conviction has surfaced lately in state legislation that attempts to nullify federal gun regulations. For the nullifiers, and many others, the broadest possible right to bear arms is purportedly enshrined in the 2nd Amendment and recognized in the Supreme Court case Heller vs. District of Columbia.


http://www.latimes.com/opinion/comme...,7673462.story (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ellis-gun-control-nullification-20130908,0,7673462.story)


"My State will pay any money the lawyers ask to dump the Supreme Court on it's fat ass"

:grin:

[jillian]

scalia said in heller that the right to own weapons was subject to reasonable regulation.

[Chris]

The proper word would be protection, there's no absolute protection of any right, but rights are unalienable.


Scalia engaged in judicial activism in Heller.

[paul alan]

Republicans spin the poor rednecks so bad, the trailer trash is ready to give up a kid to keep their guns ....

[paul alan]

"....And yet, no matter how prevalent or fervently held, the opinion that the Bill of Rights supports and the high court acknowledges an absolute right to gun ownership is just plain wrong.


http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ellis-gun-control-nullification-20130908,0,7673462.story

Plain wrong ....


:)

[Chris]

Republicans spin the poor rednecks so bad, the trailer trash is ready to give up a kid to keep their guns ....



Ooops, sorry, thought, being as this is a forum, you just might be interested in discussion. My bad.




If anyone wants to discuss, there's this good article from a week or so ago: Pride of Ignorance on Firearms (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/357047/pride-ignorance-firearms-charles-c-w-cooke)


When it comes to the Second Amendment, the Left doesn’t even understand what it’s getting wrong.

For the sneering consequentialists of the post-constitutional Left, Justice Antonin Scalia is a bogeyman among bogeymen and the Second Amendment is an exasperating relic. It should thus come as no great surprise that Scalia’s considered and thoughtful comments on the future of firearms law, offered in good faith during a speech in Montana last week, were met with brash and injudicious criticism.

As revenge for his responding to the question of whether private citizens could own rocket launchers with the modest answer that this “remains to be determined,” the Daily Kos went so far as to suggest that Scalia, whom the outlet called “Supreme Court Justice Fever Dream,” was a “crackpot” and “not right in the head.” Over at the more moderate Daily Beast, meanwhile, Adam Winkler continued to lie about the nature of the Second Amendment, contending slipperily that the “insurrectionist understanding” is false and advancing without shame the smear that “Justice Scalia, that acclaimed lover of originalism,” is “taking his cues from the Tea Party rather than from the text and history of the Constitution.”

As it happens, Scalia’s view is not crazy at all. Indeed, it is the only supportable one. The Left, whose members are typically not interested enough in the details of firearms law to participate coherently in this debate, has long neglected to examine the historical record, preferring instead to dismiss the notion of the right to bear arms as a check on government as being axiomatically dangerous. This is to its great discredit. Reflexively to reject the notion that, as Thomas Jefferson put it in the Declaration, “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it” is to ignore not only the principles that undergirded the American founding but also the British common law that preceded it, the recorded debates surrounding the drafting and passage of both the federal and state constitutions, and the bulk of the contemporary jurisprudence.

....

In Federalist 46, Madison laid out the insurrectionist theory himself, observing bluntly that the states should not fear the tyranny of a federal standing army because the superior state militias and well-armed public could defeat that army by force if, heaven forbid, it became necessary for them to do so.

...

Leaving the rest for you to read at the link...

[jillian]

The proper word would be protection, there's no absolute protection of any right, but rights are unalienable.

Scalia engaged in judicial activism in Heller.

only your rights in the air are "inalienable"...

once again, rights only exist to the extent they are defended by the government. you can object to that on moral grounds, but it is the reality.

he and his buddies engaged in judicial activism in citizens united, too.

[paul alan]

"....The language of the 2nd Amendment is quite clear: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." As the minority in the Heller decision argued, and more than a century of judicial precedent at the federal level established, the right to bear arms was not an inherent right of citizenship but rather a right that derived from service in the militia


http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ellis-gun-control-nullification-20130908,0,7673462.story


I'll leave it to you to read the rest?

Maybe not ......


:laugh:

[Mr Happy]

only your rights in the air are "inalienable"...

once again, rights only exist to the extent they are defended by the government. you can object to that on moral grounds, but it is the reality.

he and his buddies engaged in judicial activism in citizens united, too.

And who gets to decide what an inalienable right it?

[jillian]

And who gets to decide what an inalienable right it?

they don't exist.

[Mr Happy]

they don't exist.

To a lot of rightie wingnuts they do....
So, who gets to decide?

[Mister D]

they don't exist.

So no laws were violated at Auschwitz. Gotcha.

[Mister D]

To a lot of rightie wingnuts they do....
So, who gets to decide?

The strongest, apparently.

[RosieS]

It used to be a group right: "a well-regulated militia". Just what do Second backers think that phrase means, anyway?

This individual right crapola is bullcrap. Save us from individual homicidal maniacs.

Regards from Rosie

[Mister D]

So jillian Mr Happy so human beings have no inherent dignity? . Yes, that is precisely where your logic, such as it is, leads.

[Mister D]

So no laws were violated at Auschwitz. Gotcha.
jillian

Any ideas?

[Mr Happy]

So @jillian (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=719) @Mr Happy (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=720) so human beings have no inherent dignity? . Yes, that is precisely where your logic, such as it is, leads.

Who says it's my logic? I was asking the question, not providing an opinion or answer. A question, which I note, you haven't answered...

[Mister D]

Who says it's my logic? I was asking the question, not providing an opinion or answer. A question, which I not, you haven't answered...

I did answer. Anyway, good then we agree that Jillian is talking nonsense. Her fanatical partisanship makes her say things without thinking them through.

[Mr Happy]

I did answer. Anyway, good then we agree that Jillian is talking nonsense. Her fanatical partisanship makes her say things without thinking them through.

Oh, sorry, I mistook for somebody who was being serious. Flippancy doesn't work for me..
Caio...

[BB-35]

"....The language of the 2nd Amendment is quite clear: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." As the minority in the Heller decision argued, and more than a century of judicial precedent at the federal level established, the right to bear arms was not an inherent right of citizenship but rather a right that derived from service in the militia


http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ellis-gun-control-nullification-20130908,0,7673462.story


I'll leave it to you to read the rest?

Maybe not ......


:laugh:

Maybe the LA times likes being wrong...the right belongs to the people,not the militia

[Mister D]

Oh, sorry, I mistook for somebody who was being serious. Flippancy doesn't work for me..
Caio...

Running away again? cya

[BB-35]

they don't exist.

Founding fathers thought they did......

[Mister D]

Founding fathers thought they did......

She really doesn't understand what she's saying.

[Mr Happy]

Running away again? cya

More like bored with somebody who refuses to give straight answers to pretty straightforward questions. When you want to pony up why you hate Israel so much, or who gets to decide what an inalienable right is, let me know!

[BB-35]

It used to be a group right: "a well-regulated militia". Just what do Second backers think that phrase means, anyway?

This individual right crapola is bullcrap. Save us from individual homicidal maniacs.

Regards from Rosie

Rights are individual,there are no 'group rights', dear.

[Mister D]

More like bored with somebody who refuses to give straight answers to pretty straightforward questions. When you want to pony up why you hate Israel so much, or who gets to decide what an inalienable right is, let me know!

This could actually become a interesting thread. Could you try and control your obsession with me?

I already gave you the answer.

[BB-35]

She really doesn't understand what she's saying.

No kidding!

[Mr Happy]

This could actually become a interesting thread. Could you try and control your obsession with me?

I already gave you the answer.

You gave me a flippant answer to the inalienable rights question, and zip on the Israel one. Ok, I'll try, but I dunno if I'll be able to hold back...

[BB-35]

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, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

[Mr Happy]

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, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

So what are those 'certain unalienable rights', and where is the proof that this creator gave them to you?

[BB-35]

<eyeroll> unfrickenreal

[Mr Happy]

Wow, this thread is just chock full of people saying things, then getting asked questions about what they are saying, and refusing to answer.

How weird

[Chris]

only your rights in the air are "inalienable"...

once again, rights only exist to the extent they are defended by the government. you can object to that on moral grounds, but it is the reality.

he and his buddies engaged in judicial activism in citizens united, too.



Our government exists only because of rights. It exists because we had the right to keep and bear arms and it will exist only as long as we do.

[Chris]

And who gets to decide what an inalienable right it?



That's just it, no one decides. Rights are not created by man, they are inherent in who he is.

[Chris]

So no laws were violated at Auschwitz. Gotcha.



I think I just heard legal positivism hit the floor.

[Mr Happy]

That's just it, no one decides. Rights are not created by man, they are inherent in who he is.

Tell that to BB. He says a creator gave them to him. Whoever that is....

So what are these inherent rights?

[Chris]

It used to be a group right: "a well-regulated militia". Just what do Second backers think that phrase means, anyway?

This individual right crapola is bullcrap. Save us from individual homicidal maniacs.

Regards from Rosie



It would do you well to learn some grammar. I'm not joking. Look up nominative absolute.

[BB-35]

Wow, this thread is just chock full of people saying things, then getting asked questions about what they are saying, and refusing to answer.

How weird

It wasn't what I was saying..it's from the declaration of independence,and I wasn't refusing to answer,I just couldn't believe you asked such a dumbassed question...

[Chris]

Maybe the LA times likes being wrong...the right belongs to the people,not the militia


True, it is as it says, "the right of the people." And with that and other rights we created government to protect our rights.

[Mr Happy]

It wasn't what I was saying..it's from the declaration of independence,and I wasn't refusing to answer,I just couldn't believe you asked such a dumbassed question...

I know it was from the DoI. I have read it, and not being American, it has always intrigued me. Not the first time I've asked the question on a messageboard. Strangely, the people who are massive adherents to that document have never answered the question. Thought it was an obvious one - from the outside looking in...

[Chris]

Founding fathers thought they did......



More than that we have these rights are a self evident truth the denial of which leads in those who do, as D has pointed out, self-contradiction and absurdity.

[Chris]

Rights are individual,there are no 'group rights', dear.



I get what you're saying countering rosie, but I wonder, are they individual? Consider, as opposed to the liberal notion of rights as freedom from, as conservatives do, rights as responsibilities not just to ourselves but society. Man is by nature a political, or social animal. And the 2nd does say "the rights of the people" as do other amendments. It's something to be considered.

[BB-35]

The founding fathers held that each of us is born with rights that the constitution is charged with protecting them

the rights are ours by divine providence,or naturally,depending on your beliefs...

[Chris]

Tell that to BB. He says a creator gave them to him. Whoever that is....

So what are these inherent rights?



But we don't know that. We do know these rights are inherent in who we are. So whether it's the Laws of Nature or Nature's God doesn't alter that self-evident truth.

[BB-35]

I get what you're saying countering rosie, but I wonder, are they individual? Consider, as opposed to the liberal notion of rights as freedom from, as conservatives do, rights as responsibilities not just to ourselves but society. Man is by nature a political, or social animal. And the 2nd does say "the rights of the people" as do other amendments. It's something to be considered.

It says the RIGHT of the people,you don't abridge a whole segment of the populations rights at once,a person has to individually lose certian rights when they break the law...

[Mr Happy]

But we don't know that. We do know these rights are inherent in who we are. So whether it's the Laws of Nature or Nature's God doesn't alter that self-evident truth.

Yeah, but what are they? Give me an example?

[Agravan]

Yeah, but what are they? Give me an example?

I thought you said you read the DoI. You want an example? They're listed right there: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Inherent rights do not have to be enumerated, although some were in the Bill of Rights with the caveat that: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

[Mr Happy]

I thought you said you read the DoI. You want an example? They're listed right there: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Inherent rights do not have to be enumerated, although some were in the Bill of Rights with the caveat that: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

oh, boy I feel like I'm in an Abbott and Costello skit. So who gets to decide the definitions of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

[Chris]

It says the RIGHT of the people,you don't abridge a whole segment of the populations rights at once,a person has to individually lose certian rights when they break the law...


I guess I don't see that as losing aright so much as losing protection. It's like foreigners who have rights but not full protections of citizens.

[Chris]

Yeah, but what are they? Give me an example?


Of rights? The topic is about one. Right to property and the right to protect it with arms.

[Chris]

oh, boy I feel like I'm in an Abbott and Costello skit. So who gets to decide the definitions of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?



What was said is man does not create or define rights. How you live life, exercise liberty, pursue happiness is up to you so long as you do no harm to other people's rights.

[Agravan]

oh, boy I feel like I'm in an Abbott and Costello skit. So who gets to decide the definitions of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Really? You need definitions?

ok:

life

/laɪf/ Show Spelled [lahyf] Show IPA noun, plural lives /laɪvz/ Show Spelled [lahyvz] Show IPA , adjective noun
1. the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/metabolism), reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/environment) through changes originating internally.
2. the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, especially metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment.
3. the animate existence or period of animate existence of an individual: to risk one's life; a short life and a merry one.
4. a corresponding state, existence, or principle of existence conceived of as belonging to the soul: eternal life.
5. the general or universal condition of human existence: Too bad, but life is like that


lib·er·ty

/ˈlɪbərti/ Show Spelled [lib-er-tee] Show IPA noun, plural lib·er·ties.
1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/control).
2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.
4. freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint: The prisoner soon regained his liberty.
5. permission granted to a sailor, especially in the navy, to go ashore.

hap·pi·ness

/ˈhæpinɪs/ Show Spelled [hap-ee-nis] Show IPA noun
1. the quality or state of being happy (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/happy).
2. good fortune; pleasure; contentment; joy.

pur·suit

/pərˈsut/ Show Spelled [per-soot] Show IPA noun
1. the act of pursuing (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pursue): in pursuit of the fox.
2. an effort to secure or attain; quest: the pursuit of happiness (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/happiness).
3. any occupation, pastime, or the like, in which (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/which) a person is engaged regularly or customarily: literary pursuits.





http://dictionary.reference.com/

[Mr Happy]

Really? You need definitions?

ok:

life

/laɪf/ Show Spelled [lahyf] Show IPA noun, plural lives /laɪvz/ Show Spelled [lahyvz] Show IPA , adjective noun
1. the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/metabolism), reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/environment) through changes originating internally.
2. the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, especially metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment.
3. the animate existence or period of animate existence of an individual: to risk one's life; a short life and a merry one.
4. a corresponding state, existence, or principle of existence conceived of as belonging to the soul: eternal life.
5. the general or universal condition of human existence: Too bad, but life is like that


lib·er·ty

/ˈlɪbərti/ Show Spelled [lib-er-tee] Show IPA noun, plural lib·er·ties.
1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/control).
2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.
4. freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint: The prisoner soon regained his liberty.
5. permission granted to a sailor, especially in the navy, to go ashore.

hap·pi·ness

/ˈhæpinɪs/ Show Spelled [hap-ee-nis] Show IPA noun
1. the quality or state of being happy (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/happy).
2. good fortune; pleasure; contentment; joy.

pur·suit

/pərˈsut/ Show Spelled [per-soot] Show IPA noun
1. the act of pursuing (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pursue): in pursuit of the fox.
2. an effort to secure or attain; quest: the pursuit of happiness (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/happiness).
3. any occupation, pastime, or the like, in which (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/which) a person is engaged regularly or customarily: literary pursuits.





http://dictionary.reference.com/

About as helpful as a hole in the head....

[Mr Happy]

What was said is man does not create or define rights. How you live life, exercise liberty, pursue happiness is up to you so long as you do no harm to other people's rights.

Sounds like an easy way out and gives people the excuse to do what they want...
Wonder what women and slaves thought about that in 1776.....

[Mr Happy]

Of rights? The topic is about one. Right to property and the right to protect it with arms.

Who says it's an inalienable right to have property? Or protect it with arms?

[Chris]

Sounds like an easy way out and gives people the excuse to do what they want...
Wonder what women and slaves thought about that in 1776.....



Why do you say those things? There is no moral relativism implied the those words, that is a modern progressive view.


They probably didn't think too much of it as that was those times and not these. Despite your anachronism, the seeds of liberty were then planted in all men are created equal with inalienable rights. It took time to protect those rights.

[Chris]

Who says it's an inalienable right to have property? Or protect it with arms?


It's our nature, it is the means that have evolved by which we pursue happiness. If we are not free to own and protect property, then we are mere slaves. But that makes no rational sense because we can't all be slaves to each other. That logically contradictory.

[peoshi]

Who says it's an inalienable right to have property? Or protect it with arms?Are you really that stupid?

Who specifically says you even have the right to exist?

[RosieS]

Rights are individual,there are no 'group rights', dear.

The "press" isn't a group to you then. A "religion" isn't a group of people, either.

There ought to be a rule barring brain dead posting. Then those of us with functioning brains would not have to wade thru so much tripe.

Regards from Rosie

[peoshi]

BTW...if you bothered to look most state laws in the US allow the use of force to prevent or terminate trespass!

When you don't know what you are talking about it's best to keep your mouth shut.

[peoshi]

The "press" isn't a group to you then. A "religion" isn't a group of people, either.

There ought to be a rule barring brain dead posting. Then those of us with functioning brains would not have to wade thru so much tripe.

Regards from RosieYou would not be a member if that were the case!

[Mr Happy]

the seeds of liberty were then planted in all men are created equal with inalienable rights.

Says who?

[Mr Happy]

Are you really that stupid?

Who specifically says you even have the right to exist?

no, i'm looking to see where the line is drawn. Who gets to decide what...

[Chris]

Are you really that stupid?

Who specifically says you even have the right to exist?



Now, now, he's not stupid, he's just trying to play devil's advocate as pure skeptic. As you point out those, if from the pure skeptics view, right do not exist, then what right does he have to exist let alone post on a forum and speak his mind. It's like the pure skeptic who claims it's true there is no truth.

[Mr Happy]

BTW...if you bothered to look most state laws in the US allow the use of force to prevent or terminate trespass!.

You make that sound like it's a good thing....

[Chris]

The "press" isn't a group to you then. A "religion" isn't a group of people, either.

There ought to be a rule barring brain dead posting. Then those of us with functioning brains would not have to wade thru so much tripe.

Regards from Rosie



There is a rule against personal attacks, rosie.

That wasn't a very good argument for all you're doing is taking advantage of ambiguities. We don't have press and religion, we have a right to practice journalism and religion.

[Chris]

Says who?


Again, the pure skeptic. History says so, happy. We have a document that establishes the moral principles of this nation, that all men are created equal with inalienable rights, and while for a time that wasn't practiced, over time it has come to be so. That is the whole advantage of framing a country around principles.

Do you mean to say you feel you yourself should not be free? Would you prefer to be a slave?

[Mr Happy]

Now, now, he's not stupid, he's just trying to play devil's advocate as pure skeptic. As you point out those, if from the pure skeptics view, right do not exist, then what right does he have to exist let alone post on a forum and speak his mind. It's like the pure skeptic who claims it's true there is no truth.

Untrue. I'm trying to determine the difference between a right written into law and an inalienable right, and who gets to decide what is what?

[Chris]

Untrue. I'm trying to determine the difference between a right written into law and an inalienable right, and who gets to decide what is what?


Then ask a clear question and you shall get a clear answer: Inalienable rights are natural rights. We do not create them, but through right reason discover them. Written law, posited law is created by men. There are no rights written into law. That's the difference--I don't think you're really asking for me to define the difference between right and law, there are dictionaries for that.


You said "Untrue." Now you please reciprocate and elaborate what you mean. What's untrue? How is it untrue?

[Mr Happy]

Again, the pure skeptic. History says so, happy. We have a document that establishes the moral principles of this nation, that all men are created equal with inalienable rights, and while for a time that wasn't practiced, over time it has come to be so. That is the whole advantage of framing a country around principles.

Do you mean to say you feel you yourself should not be free? Would you prefer to be a slave?

What you think a piece of paper makes things so? Did you know that Ho Chi Minh based the founding of Vietnam on your own Consitution? How did that work out for your average Vietnamese?

[Mr Happy]

Then ask a clear question and you shall get a clear answer: Inalienable rights are natural rights. We do not create them, but through right reason discover them. Written law, posited law is created by men. There are no rights written into law. That's the difference--I don't think you're really asking for me to define the difference between right and law, there are dictionaries for that.

You said "Untrue." Now you please reciprocate and elaborate what you mean. What's untrue? How is it untrue?

Again, who gets to decide what these inalienable and natural rights are? I don't find 'right reason' a good enough explanation.

Untrue in that I am not a skeptic or playing Devil's Advocate. I've been posting on messageboards to Americans for 12 years. You think this is the first time I've had this conversation?

[peoshi]

You make that sound like it's a good thing....Why would you think it is not?

[peoshi]

Again, who gets to decide what these inalienable and natural rights are? I don't find 'right reason' a good enough explanation.

Untrue in that I am not a skeptic or playing Devil's Advocate. I've been posting on messageboards to Americans for 12 years. You think this is the first time I've had this conversation?The people do...what part of that are you not getting?

[Mr Happy]

Why would you think it is not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori

[Mr Happy]

The people do...what part of that are you not getting?

And yet the people can't seem to agree what these rights are. Which part of that are you not getting. And when you say the people do, are you talking about your FF's only? Or are others deciding upon other rights as we speak? or is the USSC deciding on what those rights are as we go? Roe vs Wade anybody?

[peoshi]

And yet the people can't seem to agree what these rights are. Which part of that are you not getting. And when you say the people do, are you talking about your FF's only? Or are others deciding upon other rights as we speak? or is the USSC deciding on what those rights are as we go? Roe vs Wade anybody?I'm speaking of law, what the fuck are you ranting about? What in the hell does roe v wade have to do with the right to bear arms?

What is your solution to your imaginary problem?
You seem to be the only one questioning the rights in a country you don't even live in.
What business is it of yours anyway?
I own the property, I decide how I defend it, you don't like it then I suggest you don't trespass on my property.

[peoshi]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattorihttp://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/29/arrest-made-in-nyc-suspect-in-nj-home-invasion-caught-on-nanny-cam/

[Mr Happy]

I'm speaking of law, what the fuck are you ranting about? What in the hell does roe v wade have to do with the right to bear arms?

What is your solution to your imaginary problem?
You seem to be the only one questioning the rights in a country you don't even live in.
What business is it of yours anyway?
I own the property, I decide how I defend it, you don't like it then I suggest you don't trespass on my property.

Peoshi my friend, when a thread or conversation gets above your intellectual capacity to participate, the best thing is to bow out gracefully....
You are the reason I believe there should be an IQ test before people can vote. Certain people should not be able make decisions for normal, sane folk...

[Mr Happy]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/29/arrest-made-in-nyc-suspect-in-nj-home-invasion-caught-on-nanny-cam/

So you are scared something might happen to you? That's ok, you live in a violent society....

[Chris]

What you think a piece of paper makes things so? Did you know that Ho Chi Minh based the founding of Vietnam on your own Consitution? How did that work out for your average Vietnamese?


You seem desperate to put words in my mouth. I didn't say anything about a piece of paper making things so. It's the ideas in the document, happy. If you want to discuss, respond to what i say, please.

[Chris]

Again, who gets to decide what these inalienable and natural rights are? I don't find 'right reason' a good enough explanation.

Untrue in that I am not a skeptic or playing Devil's Advocate. I've been posting on messageboards to Americans for 12 years. You think this is the first time I've had this conversation?



With rights, as already answered, no one gets to decide. I didn't say right reason, I said they are discoverable through right reason. You need to address what i say for discussion to work.

[peoshi]

Peoshi my friend, when a thread or conversation gets above your intellectual capacity to participate, the best thing is to bow out gracefully....
You are the reason I believe there should be an IQ test before people can vote. Certain people should not be able make decisions for normal, sane folk...I'll put my intellect up against yours any day,happy...though I might feel a tinge of guilt since you are obviously unarmed...BTW.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/29/illegal-immigrant-suspected-killing-arizona-rancher/

[Mr Happy]

With rights, as already answered, no one gets to decide. I didn't say right reason, I said they are discoverable through right reason. You need to address what i say for discussion to work.


How are they discoverable through right reason? I am addressing, but you appear to like dancing...

[Mr Happy]

I'll put my intellect up against yours any day,happy...though I might feel a tinge of guilt since you are obviously unarmed...BTW.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/29/illegal-immigrant-suspected-killing-arizona-rancher/

Your answer in post 77 suggests otherwise....in spades..

Thanks for the link. As mentioned, you live in a violent society...

[jillian]

I'll put my intellect up against yours any day,happy...though I might feel a tinge of guilt since you are obviously unarmed...BTW.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/29/illegal-immigrant-suspected-killing-arizona-rancher/


lmao!

[jillian]

I'm speaking of law, what the fuck are you ranting about? What in the hell does roe v wade have to do with the right to bear arms?

What is your solution to your imaginary problem?
You seem to be the only one questioning the rights in a country you don't even live in.
What business is it of yours anyway?
I own the property, I decide how I defend it, you don't like it then I suggest you don't trespass on my property.

reading that post, i'd suggest first, that you mellow out because you sound out of control.

second, if you don't have an understanding that whatever "rights" you believe you have are affected by our caselaw and it's enforcement... then you really shouldn't be commenting on a legal system that's above your head.

as for mr happy's ability to discuss these issues, i always find it amusing when some out of control extremist has no response, they always begin to foam at the mouth and rant about him not living here.

semi-amusing, but a bit tiresome.

[RosieS]

You would not be a member if that were the case!

Says yet another who has it bass ackward.

Such tripe!

Regards from Rosie

[zelmo1234]

To a lot of rightie wingnuts they do....
So, who gets to decide?

Only God that was the point

[zelmo1234]

It used to be a group right: "a well-regulated militia". Just what do Second backers think that phrase means, anyway?

This individual right crapola is bullcrap. Save us from individual homicidal maniacs.

Regards from Rosie

You forgot something? "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed"

Using liberal babble, so they can take from others what they want for themselves, the words "the people" in the constitution and bill of rights, actually means the government?

Which is fine with me, but that means that only the government has the right to free speech, religion, press, are protected form illegal search and seizure, or even have the right to a fair trial.

So what is it lefties, do the words "the people" mean the citizens, or the government?

Regards from Reality

[zelmo1234]

Wow, this thread is just chock full of people saying things, then getting asked questions about what they are saying, and refusing to answer.

How weird

Happy you are a socialist, and that means you have little to no issue with the government having full control over the people.

In short you have no problem with being a sheep, as long as the Shepard is taking from those that you don't like and promising to give it to you.

You of course do not want to believe that these governments would go back on their word, which they always do

If the government is in control of the rights of the people? Then these mass murders in Syria, Iraq, and even Nazi Germany are not illegal, but social cleansing.

but if God actually is the one that gives rights, and the people are the defender of these rights, then it is possible that these governments have committed crimes against the people? but if the government is in charge of rights, then there has never been any violation of human rights

Which one is it, my liberal friend

[zelmo1234]

I know it was from the DoI. I have read it, and not being American, it has always intrigued me. Not the first time I've asked the question on a messageboard. Strangely, the people who are massive adherents to that document have never answered the question. Thought it was an obvious one - from the outside looking in...

Happy it is impossible for you to understand it?

People that fought and earned their freedom see the world much differently that those that are still subject to the crown?

Don't feel bad. In this country the people are responsible to protect their rights from the government, we have been doing a terrible job, but the coming insolvency in this country will force the people to take that responsibility back!

[zelmo1234]

Yeah, but what are they? Give me an example?

Well you have the right to "LIFE" which means that governments like for example Syria. don't get to kill you!

Then of course you have "liberty" while we struggled with slavery in this country as most have, this is the line that was used to end slavery, and is exactly the line that any and all civil rights advocates used, it gave women the right to won property and vote. You are to be free in this country

And then of course the "Pursuit of happiness" giving you the freedom to guide your way in life, Now sheeple such as yourself might not mind the government telling you where you will work, what you will do and controlling your life, but free people object to that!

It is noted in the DOI that it is the people that must protect these rights, and when they are violated it is their duty to throw off such government

[zelmo1234]

oh, boy I feel like I'm in an Abbott and Costello skit. So who gets to decide the definitions of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

In your country, it would be the King or Queen, please do not make eye contact with them, being common folk!

In our country it is the responsibility or the people, we have been failing in this for the past 60 years, but it is starting to come back and we will be helped in this when the federal government goes broke in a few years

[zelmo1234]

Sounds like an easy way out and gives people the excuse to do what they want...
Wonder what women and slaves thought about that in 1776.....

Now you are getting it, THEY MUST HAVE HATED IT!!!

But as the DOI stated it was their responsibility to throw of such government, and using the Constitution they were able to gain those rights

You are a subject, you only have the liberty that your good queen allows you to have, you are really no better off than they are

[zelmo1234]

Who says it's an inalienable right to have property? Or protect it with arms?

It is not those are constitutional rights to be protected by the people

[zelmo1234]

There is a rule against personal attacks, rosie.

That wasn't a very good argument for all you're doing is taking advantage of ambiguities. We don't have press and religion, we have a right to practice journalism and religion.

What she said was actually funny, she has the Militia, the Press, and Religions all being a group. But " The People" nope that is not a group to her?

We can see in this thread, that liberals have a heart felt desire to be controlled, totally and completely, this is what gives them security. If there welfare is up to them, they are afraid.

Happy is not being foolish in his eyes, he is the perfect subject, just tell him what to do and he will do it, as long as others have the responsibility and power to control him, he is happy

[zelmo1234]

Again, who gets to decide what these inalienable and natural rights are? I don't find 'right reason' a good enough explanation.

Untrue in that I am not a skeptic or playing Devil's Advocate. I've been posting on messageboards to Americans for 12 years. You think this is the first time I've had this conversation?

In your country it is Royalty!

[patrickt]

For the left, the people have no rights. The government has unlimited rights.

[Mr Happy]

Only God that was the point

And there we have it...

Some finally quits dancing and takes a stand...

well done

[Mr Happy]

It is not those are constitutional rights to be protected by the people

Don't tell me that, tell Chris

[Mr Happy]

Now you are getting it, THEY MUST HAVE HATED IT!!!

But as the DOI stated it was their responsibility to throw of such government, and using the Constitution they were able to gain those rights

You are a subject, you only have the liberty that your good queen allows you to have, you are really no better off than they are

I have stated more times than I care to remember, I am more free than you will ever be, in so many ways I wouldn't even know where to begin.

That aside, the Queen is a figurehead. Nothing more. Just like two gays getting married, she has absolutely no affect on my life whatsoever. Not even an inkling....

[Mr Happy]

In your country it is Royalty!

No it's not. Try again....

[zelmo1234]

Peoshi my friend, when a thread or conversation gets above your intellectual capacity to participate, the best thing is to bow out gracefully....
You are the reason I believe there should be an IQ test before people can vote. Certain people should not be able make decisions for normal, sane folk...

Of course you realize that in this country if you received your wish, liberals would never be elected, as they depend on the down trodden and dependent to support them?

[Mr Happy]

Of course you realize that in this country if you received your wish, liberals would never be elected, as they depend on the down trodden and dependent to support them?

Can you reword that. I don't think you've over-generalised or been stereotypical enough in your post..

[zelmo1234]

So you are scared something might happen to you? That's ok, you live in a violent society....

Actually in your country since you disarmed the people your are twice as likely to be a victim of violent crime!

Now you do have a better chance of getting shot in this country, but only if you libe in areas where the local governments have restricted your right to protect yourself

You are starting to throw stones in your glass house

[jillian]

Of course you realize that in this country if you received your wish, liberals would never be elected, as they depend on the down trodden and dependent to support them?

one more time for the uninformed and limited.... it's the blue states that keep paying for your redstates. it's your redstates that are failing educationally. it's your red states that are fat and unhealthy.

it must be so much fun living in the bubble.

[zelmo1234]

No it's not. Try again....

http://www.monarchy.org.nz/nzmon.html

[Mr Happy]

http://www.monarchy.org.nz/nzmon.html

Good link. Explains it all pretty well....
Any part of that you don't like? I like it all really...

[Mr Happy]

Actually in your country since you disarmed the people your are twice as likely to be a victim of violent crime!

Now you do have a better chance of getting shot in this country, but only if you libe in areas where the local governments have restricted your right to protect yourself

You are starting to throw stones in your glass house

Possibly. Still, I'd rather end up with a black eye to fight another day than be shot dead trick or treating....

[jillian]

Possibly. Still, I'd rather end up with a black eye to fight another day than be shot dead trick or treating....

or bringing home a pack of skittles and an iced tea.

speaking of which:

A YOUNG woman was shot dead after jumping out of a closet where she was hiding to surprise a friend.
Premila Lal, 18, was killed when the startled friend, Nerrek Daniel Galley, 21, reportedly shot her in a Longmont, Colorado home.
After the prank went awry, Galley and two of Lal's male relatives, one of them believed to be her 15-year-old brother, carried the victim to a car and took her to hospital, a neighbour told the Longmont Times-Call (http://www.timescall.com/longmont-local-news/ci_24039183/18-year-old-woman-killed-friday-night-shooting).
But she died shortly afterwards.


Girl, 3, 'shot herself' at camp ground (http://www.news.com.au/world-news/yellowstone-shooting-claims-life-of-girl-3/story-fndir2ev-1226715021317)
Iowa lets blind carry guns (http://www.news.com.au/news/world/iowa-allows-blind-to-carry-guns-under-disability-laws/story-fni0xs61-1226714987227)


Read more: http://www.news.com.au/world-news/premila-lal-18-shot-dead-after-jumping-out-of-closet-to-surprise-friend/story-fndir2ev-1226714841782#ixzz2eOiaYtvg

my favorite is the blind guy being allowed to carry a gun in iowa.

i think they should just give him a drivers license, too.

p'nuts

[Chris]

How are they discoverable through right reason? I am addressing, but you appear to like dancing...



And here the games start. You're not really engaging in discussion. You're just taking any answer and say but what does that mean--like asking what life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness means.

I'll answer but I don't really expect you want to know and discuss it. They are discoverable the same way anything else is discoverable about oneself and the world around us.

In the case of rights, one uses one's natural ability of rational thought to reason out what rights are necessary for man to reach his full potential as man, as a human being. One looks at the evolution of man and can find what rights, as responsibilities, as obligations, lead man to prosper. It goes without saying and it is undeniable that life itself is one of those rights. That's just commonsense. And it takes little reason to arrive at the right to defend and protect oneself.

[Mister D]

So Mr Happy do human beings have inherent dignity or not? Are human beings to be respected simply for what they are or not? If so, how did you determine this?

[Mister D]

And here the games start. You're not really engaging in discussion. You're just taking any answer and say but what does that mean--like asking what life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness means.

I'll answer but I don't really expect you want to know and discuss it. They are discoverable the same way anything else is discoverable about oneself and the world around us.

In the case of rights, one uses one's natural ability of rational thought to reason out what rights are necessary for man to reach his full potential as man, as a human being. One looks at the evolution of man and can find what rights, as responsibilities, as obligations, lead man to prosper. It goes without saying and it is undeniable that life itself is one of those rights. That's just commonsense. And it takes little reason to arrive at the right to defend and protect oneself.

Yes, it is common sense yet Mr Happy acts as if its arbitrary.

[Chris]

For the left, the people have no rights. The government has unlimited rights.


To varying degrees I think that's true. But if people have no rights, and government all power, then we're led logically to an absurd conclusion that we are all just slaves, not to any individual master, but to the state. There were the conclusions of Plato, the conclusions of Hegel, and Marx. It was the fundamental philosophy of the Nazis and Fascists and Communists, the totalitarian state which the people are subservient to.

[Chris]

And there we have it...

Some finally quits dancing and takes a stand...

well done


Heck, the Declaration states that and I cited it: the Laws of Nature and Nature's God. Natural law, whether you want to attribute those law to God or nature matters not at all. And natural rights are derived from natural law.

[Ravi]

Only God that was the pointThen why bother with a constitution at all? Do you seriously believe God cares about gun rights?

[Mister D]

Then why bother with a constitution at all? Do you seriously believe God cares about gun rights?

:rollseyes: We aren't talking about gun rights, Marie.

[Ravi]

:rollseyes: We aren't talking about gun rights, Marie.

As poor as Zelmo's grammar is, I do believe he is more intelligent than you and does not need your deflections and misstatements. Thanks, anyway.

[Mister D]

As poor as Zelmo's grammar is, I do believe he is more intelligent than you and does not need your deflections and misstatements. Thanks, anyway.

Marie, you try too hard. Anyway, we're not talking about gun rights.

[Chris]

Then why bother with a constitution at all? Do you seriously believe God cares about gun rights?



So why do we have a constitution, marie?

[Ravi]

Marie, you try too hard. Anyway, we're not talking about gun rights.
Sure you are. Read the OP. And then explain why rights are up to God to decide and how if they are, why he cares about gun rights. And then explain why we need a constitution as only God has the ability to judge. Otherwise, go back to your normal race obsessed threads.

[Ravi]

So why do we have a constitution, marie?
Why are you answering a question with a question? Because you don't have an answer. Sometimes it is better to keep quiet....

[RosieS]

Actually in your country since you disarmed the people your are twice as likely to be a victim of violent crime!

Now you do have a better chance of getting shot in this country, but only if you libe in areas where the local governments have restricted your right to protect yourself

You are starting to throw stones in your glass house

Exactly bass ackwards.

If there actually were mandatory minimums for use of a gun that were Federal and always enforced, the US might have the low levels of gun violence that Australia enjoys.

I don't want an IQ test for voting; I want one for gun ownership. And a sanity exam, too. They don't let crazy people have license to drive, but any insane lunatic can plop down cash at a gun show and walk away enabled with lethal force.

It seems contagious that so.many morons cannot comprehend what is wrong with this picture. More and more morons cannot.

The Second Amendment is to arm ourselves against foreign invaders rather than having a free standing domestic army.

That is what having a well regulated militia means. The Founders never intended gun ownership to be an individual right. It wasn't until activist RW justices recently made it to be. And carnage ensues.

Regards from Rosie

[Mister D]

Sure you are. Read the OP. And then explain why rights are up to God to decide and how if they are, why he cares about gun rights. And then explain why we need a constitution as only God has the ability to judge. Otherwise, go back to your normal race obsessed threads.

Gun rights aren't natural rights, Marie. We don't have the rights to life, liberty, pursuit of haoppiness, and guns. The discussion quickly shifted to a discussion of the nature of rights and to natural rights. Yes, I realize it went way over your head...

Zelmo isn't talking about guns either, Marie. He is talking about natural rights. As for the God as judge thing I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you?

That comment about race was rich coming from you. lol

[nic34]

Sure you are. Read the OP. And then explain why rights are up to God to decide and how if they are, why he cares about gun rights. And then explain why we need a constitution as only God has the ability to judge. Otherwise, go back to your normal race obsessed threads.


It's a really big assumption for many that a god/gods even exist.

[Ravi]

Gun rights aren't natural rights, Marie. We don't have the rights to life, liberty, pursuit of haoppiness, and guns. The discussion quickly shifted to a discussion of the nature of rights and to natural rights. Yes, I realize it went way over your head...

Zelmo isn't talking about guns either, Marie. He is talking about natural rights. As for the God as judge thing I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you?

That comment about race was rich coming from you. lol

You seem to be saying that we have no natural right to protect ourselves or our property.

[Mister D]

It's a really big assumption for many that a god/gods even exist.

Ah, nic arrives. So, nic, is the inherent dignity of human beings just a myth?

[Mister D]

You seem to be saying that we have no natural right to protect ourselves or our property.

No, I don't seem to be saying that, Marie. I can easily defend myself with a bottle of cyanide mist or a flamethrower but I don't have a right to such things.

[nic34]

Ah, nic arrives. So, nic, is the inherent dignity of human beings just a myth?

No myth. It's in the UDHR preamble.

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

[Mister D]

No myth. It's in the UDHR preamble.

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

So prior to this human beings had no inherent dignity? That is, as long as the state decides we do then we can rest assured human life is entitled to respect. When the state decides otherwise, as it has many times in the recent past, we can be assured that it does not. Is that what you are saying, nic?

[Ravi]

No, I don't seem to be saying that, Marie. I can easily defend myself with a bottle of cyanide mist or a flamethrower but I don't have a right to such things.

Why not?

[Ravi]

btw, D, I found this on conservapedia so it must be true and you've strayed off the plantation.

An exhaustive list of the unalienable rights possessed by man would probably fill several volumes. However, at a minimum they include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The following items, derived from the American Bill of Rights, expand on these themes:


1. To act in self-defense (personal, family, innocents, nation). 2. To own and carry weapons for self-defense and for ensuring that the nation remains free. 3. To own and control private property (land, money, personal items, intellectual property, etc.) 4. To earn a living and keep the fruit of one’s labor. 5. To freely migrate within the country or to leave the country. 6. To worship -- or not worship -- God in the manner one chooses. 7. To associate with -- or disassociate from -- any person or group. 8. To express any idea through print, voice, banner, or other media. 9. To be secure in one’s home, papers, and person against unwarranted searches and seizures (privacy). 10. To be advised of the charges, in the event of arrest. 11. To have a judge determine if the accused should be held for trial or for punishment. 12. To be tried by a jury of one’s peers and face one’s accuser, in the event of being charged with a crime. 13. To be tried by a jury of one’s peers, in the event of a suit in which the disputed amount is substantive. 14. To suffer no cruel or unusual punishment. 15. To establish, monitor, control, and petition our servant government to help secure the above rights. 16. To abolish said government, when it becomes destructive of these rights.

[Mister D]

btw, D, I found this on conservapedia so it must be true and you've strayed off the plantation.

An exhaustive list of the unalienable rights possessed by man would probably fill several volumes. However, at a minimum they include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The following items, derived from the American Bill of Rights, expand on these themes:


1. To act in self-defense (personal, family, innocents, nation). 2. To own and carry weapons for self-defense and for ensuring that the nation remains free. 3. To own and control private property (land, money, personal items, intellectual property, etc.) 4. To earn a living and keep the fruit of one’s labor. 5. To freely migrate within the country or to leave the country. 6. To worship -- or not worship -- God in the manner one chooses. 7. To associate with -- or disassociate from -- any person or group. 8. To express any idea through print, voice, banner, or other media. 9. To be secure in one’s home, papers, and person against unwarranted searches and seizures (privacy). 10. To be advised of the charges, in the event of arrest. 11. To have a judge determine if the accused should be held for trial or for punishment. 12. To be tried by a jury of one’s peers and face one’s accuser, in the event of being charged with a crime. 13. To be tried by a jury of one’s peers, in the event of a suit in which the disputed amount is substantive. 14. To suffer no cruel or unusual punishment. 15. To establish, monitor, control, and petition our servant government to help secure the above rights. 16. To abolish said government, when it becomes destructive of these rights.

That's nice. Do you read conservapedia often? More than I do, apparently. lol

[Mister D]

Why not?

Does my lack of access to poison and flamethrowers prevent me from defending myself?

[Mister D]

So prior to this human beings had no inherent dignity? That is, as long as the state decides we do then we can rest assured human life is entitled to respect. When the state decides otherwise, as it has many times in the recent past, we can be assured that it does not. Is that what you are saying, nic?

See your error now, nic34 ?

[Ravi]

That's nice. Do you read conservapedia often? More than I do, apparently. lol
Only when I need a laugh. But thanks for reminding me how stupid conservapedia really is....though I'm rather surprised that you disagree with them.

What I've taken from this thread is that gun rights are not natural rights but merely rights granted by the people. Therefore we, the people are free to limit gun rights in any way we please.

[Chris]

Why are you answering a question with a question? Because you don't have an answer. Sometimes it is better to keep quiet....



Questions carry implications just like statements do, marie. I've been answering questions throughout this thread. Your question seems to imply you don't think we need a constitution, my question counter implies we do.

[Ravi]

Questions carry implications just like statements do, marie. I've been answering questions throughout this thread. Your question seems to imply you don't think we need a constitution, my question counter implies we do.
Ah, I see. Yet another faulty inference from you. I will see if Zelmo has an answer.

[Mister D]

Only when I need a laugh. But thanks for reminding me how stupid conservapedia really is....though I'm rather surprised that you disagree with them.

What I've taken from this thread is that gun rights are not natural rights but merely rights granted by the people. Therefore we, the people are free to limit gun rights in any way we please.

Sorry, I really don't even know what it is. :smiley:

Actually, you're not "free to limit gun rights in any way we please". Speaking of faulty inferences.

The thorough bitch slapping the NRA just gave you appears to have left you a bit dazed.

[Ravi]

Sorry, I really don't even know what it is. :smiley:

Actually, you're not "free to limit gun rights in any way we please". Speaking of faulty inferences.

The thorough bitch slapping the NRA just gave you appears to have left you a bit dazed.
How so? If gun rights are not a natural right (how about that, we agree on something), then why cannot the people (the ones that actually have the power in our constitutional republic, at least on paper) not limit them however we please?

[Mister D]

How so? If gun rights are not a natural right (how about that, we agree on something), then why cannot the people (the ones that actually have the power in our constitutional republic, at least on paper) not limit them however we please?

Defense of life and property is a natural right. Guns are a perfectly reasonable means of defense which is why we have a constitutional right to own them (as opposed to poison, flamethrowers, tanks etc.). You keep losing that battle. When will you learn that the very rhetoric you employ always betrays your true intentions?

[Chris]

Exactly bass ackwards.

If there actually were mandatory minimums for use of a gun that were Federal and always enforced, the US might have the low levels of gun violence that Australia enjoys.

I don't want an IQ test for voting; I want one for gun ownership. And a sanity exam, too. They don't let crazy people have license to drive, but any insane lunatic can plop down cash at a gun show and walk away enabled with lethal force.

It seems contagious that so.many morons cannot comprehend what is wrong with this picture. More and more morons cannot.

The Second Amendment is to arm ourselves against foreign invaders rather than having a free standing domestic army.

That is what having a well regulated militia means. The Founders never intended gun ownership to be an individual right. It wasn't until activist RW justices recently made it to be. And carnage ensues.

Regards from Rosie




If there actually were mandatory minimums for use of a gun that were Federal and always enforced, the US might have the low levels of gun violence that Australia enjoys.

Yet data show in the US a increase in the rate of gun ownership correlated with a decrease in the rate of violent crime. How do you account for this? It counters your causal claim.



That is what having a well regulated militia means.

Wrong. Back when it was written it meant about the equivalent of well-oiled, well-trained. It certainly did not mean regulated in the modern sense.


The Founders never intended gun ownership to be an individual right.

Then why does the amendment read "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?

[Chris]

It's a really big assumption for many that a god/gods even exist.

As much an assumption He doesn't.

And what's that got to do with the right of the people to keep and bear arms?

[Mister D]

The Founders never intended gun ownership to be an individual right.


Historically, this claim is so implausible (after all, they came from a culture in which guns were common household items) I'm not sure how anyone could believe it.

[Chris]

Ah, I see. Yet another faulty inference from you. I will see if Zelmo has an answer.

So you do think we need a constitution. Now could you be so kind as to answer why?

[Agravan]

Then why does the amendment read "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?

Because, in this one Amendment, "People" means "government" in LibWorld.
If that's the case, then all instances of "People" in the bill of rights should refer to the government also. SO the "people" have no freedom of speech, only the government does.

[Ravi]

Defense of life and property is a natural right. Guns are a perfectly reasonable means of defense which is why we have a constitutional right to own them (as opposed to poison, flamethrowers, tanks etc.). You keep losing that battle. When will you learn that the very rhetoric you employ always betrays your true intentions?
So you believe reasonableness factors into the natural right of defense. Even though nothing of the sort is mentioned in the constitution. We, the people could decide that reasonableness means knives are the ultimate defense or tanks are the ultimate defense when it comes to defense.

You dance around a lot but you keep stepping on your own toes.

[Mister D]

jillian I never did hear back from you. Were anyone's rights violated at Auschwitz?

[Chris]

Defense of life and property is a natural right. Guns are a perfectly reasonable means of defense which is why we have a constitutional right to own them (as opposed to poison, flamethrowers, tanks etc.). You keep losing that battle. When will you learn that the very rhetoric you employ always betrays your true intentions?



Exactly. We have a right to defend ourselves, our lives, liberties, pursuit of happiness. We created a government to do that, but did so with the provision it might not and we could disband it. Thus, as I posted much earlier, the second amendment is about insurrection, the right to defend ourselves against the government we created.

[Mister D]

So you believe reasonableness factors into the natural right of defense. Even though nothing of the sort is mentioned in the constitution. We, the people could decide that reasonableness means knives are the ultimate defense or tanks are the ultimate defense when it comes to defense.

You dance around a lot but you keep stepping on your own toes.

Of course it does. Who suggests otherwise? A tiny fringe you try to portray as common among the supporters of gun rights? Yet we have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness right? What do those things mean, Marie? Oh...what's that...we have to use our minds? You mean our reason? :rollseyes: Good Lord...

If you believe that knives would be the ultimate in self-defense do make your argument. I'd love to hear it. :smiley:

[Mister D]

So you do think we need a constitution. Now could you be so kind as to answer why?

Sheesh...let me give you a hint Marie. It is to protect the rights inherent to human beings.

[nic34]

Then why does the amendment read "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?

Why does it say "the right of the people" and not "the right of individuals"?

[Chris]

Because, in this one Amendment, "People" means "government" in LibWorld.
If that's the case, then all instances of "People" in the bill of rights should refer to the government also. SO the "people" have no freedom of speech, only the government does.



By that sloppy liberal thinking then we the people did not have a right to create a government. Oops.

[Chris]

Why does it say "the right of the people" and not "the right of individuals"?



I'd go along with it's the right of the people as a group, the right of society. Rights are, after all, responsibilities, obligations we have toward others in a society.

But by extension, if society has the right, then we each do.

[nic34]

But by extension, if society has the right, then we each do

Thus in context the amendment meant authorizing a milita for defense.

[Chris]

Thus in context the amendment meant authorizing a milita for defense.

It doesn't say that, nic.

[Mister D]

And the criteria of historical effects rules that out as a plausible interpretation. What that means is that such an explanation fails to account for the fact that the US developed a "gun culture" very early.

[zelmo1234]

Possibly. Still, I'd rather end up with a black eye to fight another day than be shot dead trick or treating....

Actually you have a better chance of getting killed in your country? but they just do not do it with a gun!

[zelmo1234]

Then why bother with a constitution at all? Do you seriously believe God cares about gun rights?

Guns are a constitutional right? Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness are given by God

Huge difference. and also the difference between rights as defined in the constitution that can be changed, and the rights outlined in the Declaration which states that it is the duty of the people to throw off governments that infringe on them

Sorry for the confusion!

[zelmo1234]

As poor as Zelmo's grammar is, I do believe he is more intelligent than you and does not need your deflections and misstatements. Thanks, anyway.

Thank you and in this case Mr D was right we are not talking about constitutional rights, which can be changed

[zelmo1234]

Exactly bass ackwards.

If there actually were mandatory minimums for use of a gun that were Federal and always enforced, the US might have the low levels of gun violence that Australia enjoys.

I don't want an IQ test for voting; I want one for gun ownership. And a sanity exam, too. They don't let crazy people have license to drive, but any insane lunatic can plop down cash at a gun show and walk away enabled with lethal force.

It seems contagious that so.many morons cannot comprehend what is wrong with this picture. More and more morons cannot.

The Second Amendment is to arm ourselves against foreign invaders rather than having a free standing domestic army.

That is what having a well regulated militia means. The Founders never intended gun ownership to be an individual right. It wasn't until activist RW justices recently made it to be. And carnage ensues.

Regards from Rosie

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/24/blog-posting/social-media-post-says-uk-has-far-higher-violent-c/

Well of course you can't fix Stupid!

You are nearly 4 times more likely to be a victim of a violent crime in the UK and Australia than in the USA

Regards From Reality

[zelmo1234]

You seem to be saying that we have no natural right to protect ourselves or our property.

That is covered under that Life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness thing

[zelmo1234]

How so? If gun rights are not a natural right (how about that, we agree on something), then why cannot the people (the ones that actually have the power in our constitutional republic, at least on paper) not limit them however we please?

You are getting closer, The answer is that we do have the power to actually make it illegal to own guns in the USA. By changing the constitution!

The people that have the power to change those laws are in fact the people themselves. They will vote to end the second amendment and if 3/4 of the states think that it is a good idea, then it will happen, same with speech, and the press and alcohol for that matter?

What you can't do is make a low that goes against the constitution, and that is what liberals try and do all the time, when they should just try and change the constitution

[zelmo1234]

So do you believe that you have an individual right to speech and the press to practice religion? because those amendments don't say the individual either?

[zelmo1234]

Thus in context the amendment meant authorizing a milita for defense.

Then in the context of the first amendment it would mean that government had a right to free press and speech and religion? Meaning that government should actually be teaching it's chosen religion?

It is not rocket science, The debates were recorded, I have to get on a plane or I would post them again for you. It was totally clear that the founding fathers not only wanted the people to own guns but to use them to protect themselves even from an oppressive government

[RosieS]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/24/blog-posting/social-media-post-says-uk-has-far-higher-violent-c/

Well of course you can't fix Stupid! Lo

You are nearly 4 times more likely to be a victim of a violent crime in the UK and Australia than in the USA

Regards From Reality


What is stupid is not reading your own link:

The meme said "there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the U.K.," compared to "466 violent crimes per 100,000" in the United States. Our preliminary attempt to make an apples-to-apples comparison shows a much smaller difference in violent crime rates between the two countries, but criminologists say differences in how the statistics are collected make it impossible to produce a truly valid comparison. We rate the claim False.

THAT is dumb as a doorknob stupid.

Regards from Rosie

[Ravi]

Guns are a constitutional right? Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness are given by God

Huge difference. and also the difference between rights as defined in the constitution that can be changed, and the rights outlined in the Declaration which states that it is the duty of the people to throw off governments that infringe on them

Sorry for the confusion!

Yes, guns are a right in the constitution, so that would make them a constitutional right. Good of you to realize and admit that the bill of rights can be amended.

[Ravi]

What you can't do is make a low that goes against the constitution, and that is what liberals try and do all the time, when they should just try and change the constitutionWhich laws do you speak of?

[BB-35]

The Founders never intended gun ownership to be an individual right.

Youre wrong,dear.....the founders never specified....they just said 'arms'

[paul alan]

"...A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."


The historical context in which these words were crafted clarifies what was in James Madison's mind when he wrote them. In 1787-88, seven of the states that ratified the proposed Constitution did so on the condition that Congress (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/u.s.-congress-ORGOV0000131.topic) give consideration to adding several amendments if and when it went into effect. These states proposed 124 amendments, none of which mentioned the right to bear arms but several of which mentioned the fear of a standing army.


http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ellis-gun-control-nullification-20130908,0,7673462.story

[RosieS]

Youre wrong,dear.....the founders never specified....they just said 'arms'

Duh. The arms they had in 1781 were guns. Then and now people did not own their own household cannons.

Guns were a tool for obtaining groceries, same as a plow was.

Today, guns are a panacea for the paranoid and a source of income for criminals.

Regards from Rosie

[RosieS]

"...A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."


The historical context in which these words were crafted clarifies what was in James Madison's mind when he wrote them. In 1787-88, seven of the states that ratified the proposed Constitution did so on the condition that Congress (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/u.s.-congress-ORGOV0000131.topic) give consideration to adding several amendments if and when it went into effect. These states proposed 124 amendments, none of which mentioned the right to bear arms but several of which mentioned the fear of a standing army.


http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ellis-gun-control-nullification-20130908,0,7673462.story

'Zactly! Like I said about a domestic army above.

But if we are now going to use our National Guard as the American Foreign Legion, will the Department of Homeland Security do away with posse comitatus and indeed form a Homeland Army?

Regards from Rosie

[BB-35]

Duh. The arms they had in 1781 were guns. Then and now people did not own their own household cannons.

Guns were a tool for obtaining groceries, same as a plow was.

Today, guns are a panacea for the paranoid and a source of income for criminals.

Regards from Rosie

Duh,they were purposfully ambiguous when they said 'arms' for people like YOU who try and misrepresent what they meant

Does your 'panacea for the paranoid' include police and military?

[GrassrootsConservative]

Got any facts, Kermit, or just a bunch of Op Eds?

[Chris]

Yes, guns are a right in the constitution, so that would make them a constitutional right. Good of you to realize and admit that the bill of rights can be amended.



Here we go with constitutional rights. Hey, marie, what does constitutional right mean?

[BB-35]

'Zactly! Like I said about a domestic army above.

But if we are now going to use our National Guard as the American Foreign Legion, will the Department of Homeland Security do away with posse comitatus and indeed form a Homeland Army?

Regards from Rosie

Are you actually so cracked as to think homeland security can 'do away' with federal law?

[Chris]

"...A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."


The historical context in which these words were crafted clarifies what was in James Madison's mind when he wrote them. In 1787-88, seven of the states that ratified the proposed Constitution did so on the condition that Congress (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/u.s.-congress-ORGOV0000131.topic) give consideration to adding several amendments if and when it went into effect. These states proposed 124 amendments, none of which mentioned the right to bear arms but several of which mentioned the fear of a standing army.


http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ellis-gun-control-nullification-20130908,0,7673462.story



So what was in Madison's mind? You say nothing about that.

[Chris]

Duh. The arms they had in 1781 were guns. Then and now people did not own their own household cannons.

Guns were a tool for obtaining groceries, same as a plow was.

Today, guns are a panacea for the paranoid and a source of income for criminals.

Regards from Rosie



How do you even respond to this vacuous nonsense.

[BB-35]

"...A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."


The historical context in which these words were crafted clarifies what was in James Madison's mind when he wrote them. In 1787-88, seven of the states that ratified the proposed Constitution did so on the condition that Congress (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/u.s.-congress-ORGOV0000131.topic) give consideration to adding several amendments if and when it went into effect. These states proposed 124 amendments, none of which mentioned the right to bear arms but several of which mentioned the fear of a standing army.


http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ellis-gun-control-nullification-20130908,0,7673462.story

LA times just keeps digging themselves deeper...

[RosieS]

Are you actually so cracked as to think homeland security can 'do away' with federal law?

They did on 9/11. But you did not notice. And I am not surprised at all.

Regards from Rosie

[RosieS]

Duh,they were purposfully ambiguous when they said 'arms' for people like YOU who try and misrepresent what they meant

Does your 'panacea for the paranoid' include police and military?

If you are constantly afraid that "they" will break in and rob your house and armed police are not good enuff, then police and military are barely a panacea, but one nonetheless.

We average folks use an alarm system in place of a gun.

Regards from Rosie

[Mister D]

They did on 9/11. But you did not notice. And I am not surprised at all.

Regards from Rosie

They didn't exist on 9/11

[Ravi]

How do you even respond to this vacuous nonsense.
If you're you, by poisoning the well. So many little attacks, what a small person you must be.

[Mister D]

If you are constantly afraid that "they" will break in and Rob your house and armed police are not good enuff, then police and military are barely a panacea, but one nonetheless.

We average folks use an alarm system in place of a gun.

Regards from Rosie

Police are not obligated to protect you, Rosie. They are a deterrent.

[BB-35]

They did on 9/11. But you did not notice. And I am not surprised at all.

Regards from Rosie

Hmmm,What I DID notice is that the DHS wasn't even in existence on 9/11


OOOPS

[RosieS]

Hmmm,What I DID notice is that the DHS wasn't even in existence on 9/11


OOOPS

And you poorly deflect from posse comutatus being set aside then. Duh.

Regards from Rosie

[Mister D]

And you poorly deflect from posse comutatus being set aside then. Duh.

Regards from Rosie

Deflect? You just got punched in your sagging boobs. I'm laughing.

[paul alan]

Why are the extreme right, racist, redneck trailer trash so paranoid about people wanting to kill them?




Or did I answer my own question?



:smiley-char092:

[RosieS]

Police are not obligated to protect you, Rosie. They are a deterrent.

Yes. A panacea for the paranoid.

A blaring alarm system is a more immediate deterrent.

Dobermans are an even better immediate deterrent.

Regards from Rosie

[RosieS]

Deflect? You just got punched in your sagging boobs. I'm laughing.

Delusional much? Why yes, you will have some! Daily, even.

Regards from Rosie

[BB-35]

And you poorly deflect from posse comutatus being set aside then. Duh.

Regards from Rosie

Examples dear?

[Mister D]

Yes. A panacea for the paranoid.

A blaring alarm system is a more immediate deterrent.

Dobermans are an even better immediate deterrent.

Regards from Rosie

The police are a panacea for the paranoid? :huh: You keep using that phrase. Did you just learn it from a liberal op ed? Good Lord...this will be like "meme". Panacea for the paranoid...squak....panacea for the paranoid..

3909

[Mister D]

Delusional much? Why yes, you will have some! Daily, even.

Regards from Rosie

:huh:

[peoshi]

You two numbskulls did see the word "opinion" in that link did you not?

You can piss and moan all you want but it will not change what is in the constitution.

We have idiots in this thread trying to tell us that people does not actually mean "people" and questioning the intellect of others for disagreeing with them. Happy even brought up roe v wade, Rosie probably can't even remember what is being discussed, Jillian can't grasp it anyway, which explains lmao as her go to answer.
You guys have fun arguing with the three stooges, I have to go clean my guns and hunt for trespassers.

[RosieS]

Examples dear?

Navy fighter jets being scrambled from Oceania NAS to clear the skies over NYC. Legally, it would have had to be the Air National Guard. It wasn't.

Precident setting? Perhaps.

Regards from Rosie

[BB-35]

Navy fighter jets being scrambled from Oceania NAS to clear the skies over NYC. Legally, it would have had to be the Air National Guard. It wasn't.

Precident setting? Perhaps.

Regards from Rosie

Sorry dear,try again,the skies were already clear, and 2 jets from otis AFB air national guard took off first,and more took off from Langley AFBto provide support

[nic34]

Hmmm,What I DID notice is that the DHS wasn't even in existence on 9/11


OOOPS

The Department of Homeland Security combined 22 different federal departments and agencies into a unified, integrated cabinet agency when it was established in 2002.





http://www.dhs.gov/history

[BB-35]

In 2002,yes.

[GrassrootsConservative]

The Department of Homeland Security combined 22 different federal departments and agencies into a unified, integrated cabinet agency when it was established in 2002.





http://www.dhs.gov/history

9/11 was in 2001. :wink:

[nic34]

Are you all posting here blind? Here, this might help with you with your myopia:




combined 22 different federal departments and agencies

[BB-35]

Are you all posting here blind? Here, this might help with you with your myopia:

Are you even keeping up with the thread? DHS wasn't around on 9/11

[Chris]

So back to the topic. The following diagrams the grammar of the second amendment according to grammar rules back then, especially with the absolute nominative.

http://i.snag.gy/9QjAu.jpg

[RosieS]

Sorry dear,try again,the skies were already clear, and 2 jets from otis AFB air national guard took off first,and more took off from Langley AFBto provide support

Wrong-o. USAF did not get there. Where did you get your misinformation? Here is the truth on the AF jets:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911stand.html

Regards from Rosie

[BB-35]

There's your problem right there,getting your info from a 9/11 'truther' website.

[nic34]

There's your problem right there,getting your info from a 9/11 'truther' website.

Feel free to call out what was distorted...... then back up YOUR assertions.

[BB-35]

Feel free to call out what was distorted...... then back up YOUR assertions.

feel free to stick it,anything reported by a 9/11 truther website is suspect

Air guard from Otis AFB and langley afb were scrambled to deal with the hijacked planes and air force jets from around the country did escort duty for air force one

[zelmo1234]

Which laws do you speak of?

How about the ones that have tried to create gun free cities, Chicago has a law that is working it's way to the supreme court that is more restrictive than the DC law, they have it going through the 9th Circus (not a typo) Court, so it will be upheld by those idiots and like almost every case that they rule on over turned by the supreme court!

If they want guns to be for the military and the police they should introduce an amendment and try and get it done

[zelmo1234]

Duh. The arms they had in 1781 were guns. Then and now people did not own their own household cannons.

Guns were a tool for obtaining groceries, same as a plow was.

Today, guns are a panacea for the paranoid and a source of income for criminals.

Regards from Rosie

And Cannons and Bombs and stuff like that!

The problem that I have is that the areas with the most restrictive gun laws have the most gun crime.

Liberals have the belief that if they make guns illegal the criminals will turn them in, and of course we know that this is not true.

Just like the liberals that think that the 1500 more violent crimes in the UK per 100,000 is a rounding error????

But if they think that NO guns is the way to go they should try and change the law legally and introduce an amendment

[zelmo1234]

So what was in Madison's mind? You say nothing about that.

Well for a bunch of guys that wanted only the military to have guns, they sure were concerned that the people have a way to defend themselves from a Standing Army (the Military)

you can look at the arguments and see that it was intended to give the people the right to protect themselves from the government that they were creating.

Now people like Mrs Rosie are true Socailists and they want absolute control over people, and that will require the people to be disarmed

[zelmo1234]

If you are constantly afraid that "they" will break in and rob your house and armed police are not good enuff, then police and military are barely a panacea, but one nonetheless.

We average folks use an alarm system in place of a gun.

Regards from Rosie

Yes and in liberal wonder lands like Detroit the police will be there to collect the evidence in just 58 minutes?

Have fun watching the thugs rape your children until they get there.

And once they get there they are not obligated to protect you, but rest assure that after one of these monsters kills you , they are likely to kill him back, so you will be avenged

[zelmo1234]

If you're you, by poisoning the well. So many little attacks, what a small person you must be.

Have you bothered to read some of the crap that Rosie posts? Do you think the same of her?

[zelmo1234]

Why are the extreme right, racist, redneck trailer trash so paranoid about people wanting to kill them?
Or did I answer my own question?



:smiley-char092:

Because you bleeding heart, race baiting, crack house living, pot heads, have gutted the legal system so that they can't punish criminals or discipline kids, You Unions have gutted the budgets of the police departments to pay for wild retirement programs that could be funding officers on the street.

That is why rump Rider? See we can calls stupid names too, but as a conservative I will be reprimanded for it!

[zelmo1234]

You know what I ma trying to understand is why with all of the states and cities and counties have a police department? We have shootings in places like Detroit Chicago DC?? One would think that they could be there to help these people?

Why do think these terrible shootings at the movies in CO and the school in Newtown happened, they had security systems? I think that the police shold all be arrested, they are not doing there jobs

[Chris]

If you're you, by poisoning the well. So many little attacks, what a small person you must be.



Look up well poisoning and get back to me. Learn to distinguish message from messenger. You'll do fine.

[Chris]

Have you bothered to read some of the crap that Rosie posts? Do you think the same of her?



They're tag team buds. It's a free country, right, even thought they don't believe in right.

[Chris]

You know what I ma trying to understand is why with all of the states and cities and counties have a police department? We have shootings in places like Detroit Chicago DC?? One would think that they could be there to help these people?

Why do think these terrible shootings at the movies in CO and the school in Newtown happened, they had security systems? I think that the police shold all be arrested, they are not doing there jobs



Modern society, despite all the social networking and communications technology, isolates people. Some can be alone, some go insane. Consider some of the posters here with their constant rants and cants and rage and hate.

[Mr Happy]

And here the games start. You're not really engaging in discussion. You're just taking any answer and say but what does that mean--like asking what life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness means.

I'll answer but I don't really expect you want to know and discuss it. They are discoverable the same way anything else is discoverable about oneself and the world around us.

In the case of rights, one uses one's natural ability of rational thought to reason out what rights are necessary for man to reach his full potential as man, as a human being. One looks at the evolution of man and can find what rights, as responsibilities, as obligations, lead man to prosper. It goes without saying and it is undeniable that life itself is one of those rights. That's just commonsense. And it takes little reason to arrive at the right to defend and protect oneself.

No, I am engaging in discussion, you just need to elaborate more, which you are generally doing.

You see, this is how it usually starts out with these types of discussions. People interpret your Constitution and its amendments in many ways. There is evidence of that on this thread. Now take out you thinking you are absolutely right with your POV and they are with theirs, those that are strict constitutionalists will fall back on the Natural Rights argument, which almost seems to supercede the Constutition itself. However, IMO, you cannot have one discussion without the other. And thus we come back to the definitions of life, liberty and the pursuit and happiness and what they mean. Because those interpretations - and who gets to decide on what they are - are important in the context of this discussion. Personally? I think the natural rights argument is thrown out there by those who believe in it to give them carte blanche to do what they want to do (without interferring the rights of others). For example, fishing. Shouldn't I be allowed to got the great rivers of Colorado or Wyoming or wherever and fish until my hearts content? You would think so. But, no, you have to have licenses in some places. Some people are probably up in arms about it, but the State and/or Federal govt are probably worried about over fishing and the depletion of stocks. So who is right?

[Mr Happy]

So @Mr Happy (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=720) do human beings have inherent dignity or not? Are human beings to be respected simply for what they are or not? If so, how did you determine this?

Those are simple answers - yes and yes. Now lets talk about abortion, gun rights, free speech....yadda, yadda, yadda....

[Chris]

No, I am engaging in discussion, you just need to elaborate more, which you are generally doing.

You see, this is how it usually starts out with these types of discussions. People interpret your Constitution and its amendments in many ways. There is evidence of that on this thread. Now take out you thinking you are absolutely right with your POV and they are with theirs, those that are strict constitutionalists will fall back on the Natural Rights argument, which almost seems to supercede the Constutition itself. However, IMO, you cannot have one discussion without the other. And thus we come back to the definitions of life, liberty and the pursuit and happiness and what they mean. Because those interpretations - and who gets to decide on what they are - are important in the context of this discussion. Personally? I think the natural rights argument is thrown out there by those who believe in it to give them carte blanche to do what they want to do (without interferring the rights of others). For example, fishing. Shouldn't I be allowed to got the great rivers of Colorado or Wyoming or wherever and fish until my hearts content? You would think so. But, no, you have to have licenses in some places. Some people are probably up in arms about it, but the State and/or Federal govt are probably worried about over fishing and the depletion of stocks. So who is right?


Well, discussion requires reciprocation, happy, you fail to answer any of my questions to you and respond to my answers, you simply return to pure scepticism.

I'm talking about rights, not Constitution. Even so I'm not a constructionist, I'm a textualist.

I don't think I'm absolutely right.

On and on.


The trouble with these discussions is instead of addressing what I say you address the messenger and invent what I think and means. Not one bit of that post addresses anything I've said.

I can wait....

[Mr Happy]

Actually you have a better chance of getting killed in your country? but they just do not do it with a gun!

Untrue. 0.9 people per 100,000 are victims of homicide in NZ. In Australia it is 1 per 100,000. In the US it is 4 per 100,000. I am four times more likely to be a victim in the US than Aust or NZ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

[Chris]

Those are simple answers - yes and yes. Now lets talk about abortion, gun rights, free speech....yadda, yadda, yadda....


You choose simple answers then deflected from the hard one: "If so, how did you determine this?" Try and answer.

[Mr Happy]

Well, discussion requires reciprocation, happy, you fail to answer any of my questions to you and respond to my answers, you simply return to pure scepticism.

I'm talking about rights, not Constitution. Even so I'm not a constructionist, I'm a textualist.

I don't think I'm absolutely right.

On and on.


The trouble with these discussions is instead of addressing what I say you address the messenger and invent what I think and means. Not one bit of that post addresses anything I've said.

I can wait....

You haven't answered my intial questions with any certainty. IOW, I'm still waiting for an answer. You talk about 'natural rights' as if they are the easiest thing in the world to understand. What you migth consider a natural right others might not and until we find a definition and decide on exactly what they are - and give examples - then we will continue this dance. I have answered plenty of your questions. I find that you have partially answered the odd one of mine.

And if you don't want me 'inventing' then be more precise.....

[jillian]

Those are simple answers - yes and yes. Now lets talk about abortion, gun rights, free speech....yadda, yadda, yadda....

He thinks two cells should have the same rights as a sentient woman.

[Chris]

You haven't answered my intial questions with any certainty. IOW, I'm still waiting for an answer. You talk about 'natural rights' as if they are the easiest thing in the world to understand. What you migth consider a natural right others might not and until we find a definition and decide on exactly what they are - and give examples - then we will continue this dance. I have answered plenty of your questions. I find that you have partially answered the odd one of mine.

And if you don't want me 'inventing' then be more precise.....


But I have answered and in the the course of discussion, as I discover what you're asking, I'll continue to elaborate, provided you reciprocate. That might begin with addressing what I have actually posted.


You talk about 'natural rights' as if they are the easiest thing in the world to understand.

I haven't said that at all. You're not addressing what I have said.


What you migth consider a natural right others might not and until we find a definition and decide on exactly what they are - and give examples - then we will continue this dance.

I have said we do not decide what they are. You're not addressing what I have said.


I have answered plenty of your questions.

You've have addressed what I've posted let alone a single question.


And if you don't want me 'inventing' then be more precise.....

Be more precise in your questions.


Do yo want to engage in discussion or do you want to dance?

[Mr Happy]

You choose simple answers then deflected from the hard one: "If so, how did you determine this?" Try and answer.

It's your premise, it's yours to prove, not mine. You're the one talking about natural rights...not I...

[Chris]

He thinks two cells should have the same rights as a sentient woman.



I don't think I've ever heard D say anything like that.

[Mr Happy]

But I have answered and in the the course of discussion, as I discover what you're asking, I'll continue to elaborate, provided you reciprocate. That might begin with addressing what I have actually posted.



I haven't said that at all. You're not addressing what I have said.



I have said we do not decide what they are. You're not addressing what I have said.



You've have addressed what I've posted let alone a single question.



Be more precise in your questions.


Do yo want to engage in discussion or do you want to dance?

Give me your question then. Ask away in a straight, normal manner without doing the two-step. What exact question havent' I answered? And don't link to another post. Type it out in plain old English...

[jillian]

I don't think I've ever heard D say anything like that.

Thought that post was directed to you like the others.

[Chris]

It's your premise, it's yours to prove, not mine. You're the one talking about natural rights...not I...



Huh? It was D's, but I think I see where he's going with it.

He asked "So Mr Happy do human beings have inherent dignity or not? Are human beings to be respected simply for what they are or not? If so, how did you determine this?"

To which you answered yes and yes and ______. In answering yes you have agreed to his premises. His final question is how do you determine that yes humans have inherent dignity and that yes humand beings are to be respected for who they are?

Well, care to venture an answer?

[Chris]

Thought that post was directed to you like the others.

I've never said anything remotely like that either.

[Mr Happy]

Huh? It was D's, but I think I see where he's going with it.

He asked "So @Mr Happy (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=720) do human beings have inherent dignity or not? Are human beings to be respected simply for what they are or not? If so, how did you determine this?"

To which you answered yes and yes and ______. In answering yes you have agreed to his premises. His final question is how do you determine that yes humans have inherent dignity and that yes humand beings are to be respected for who they are?

Well, care to venture an answer?

Common sense and the morals and mores you have been brought up that teach you these things.

[Agravan]

He thinks two cells should have the same rights as a sentient woman.
I would think that this is more than just 2 cells. So, if it's not human, or a "potential human" as you people like to say, what will this eventually become?

http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4991101005465557&pid=1.7

[Mr Happy]

I would think that this is more than just 2 cells. So, if it's not human, or a "potential human" as you people like to say, what will this eventually become?

http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4991101005465557&pid=1.7

How far along is it?

[jillian]

It's whatever he feels like making up it is
is ow ask him at what point he DOESN'T think he has the right to impose his religious determinations and moral judgments on others.

Isnt it cute that he can't have the discussion without the pictures.

[Agravan]

It's whatever he feels like making up it is
is ow ask him at what point he DOESN'T think he has the right to impose his religious determinations and moral judgments on others.

Isnt it cute that he can't have the discussion without the pictures.
Isn't it cute how you can't answer a simple question, jilly-girl? C'mon, you can answer...that's a good girl...

[Agravan]

How far along is it?

Does it matter? You people would still kill this baby.

[jillian]

I rest my case

now ask him if he wants to cut aid to dependent children and WIC

oops. There goes his pretend moral high ground.

Now he'll tell you he's a"small government conservative" (except when government enforces his religious beliefs, of course)

[jillian]

I've never said anything remotely like that either.

Said it? And yet it's clear that's what you believe since you claim that you can't put the rights of a woman ahead of the two cells.

Or we can continue to play your little game.

[Mr Happy]

Does it matter? You people would still kill this baby.

At that stage of its development? Not likely unless it is severely mentally disabled or its mother's health is at risk....

[jillian]

At that stage of its development? Not likely unless it is severely mentally disabled or its mother's health is at risk....

These are the people who support personhood laws. No exceptions. The old men have spoken.

[Mr Happy]

These are the people who support personhood laws. No exceptions. The old men have spoken.

I wonder if there could be some sort of agreement with the ultra pro lifers that if a mother finds out that her child is going to be severely disabled mentally that she is more than happy to give birth as long as they look after it?

[Ravi]

Have you bothered to read some of the crap that Rosie posts? Do you think the same of her?

No, she's usually on topic and doesn't whine and fling insults like chrissie does.

[jillian]

I wonder if there could be some sort of agreement with the ultra pro lifers that if a mother finds out that her child is going to be severely disabled mentally that she is more than happy to give birth as long as they look after it?

They think its G-d"s will. So I doubt it.

There are many reasons to terminate a pregnancy. And many reasons not to

[Chris]

Common sense and the morals and mores you have been brought up that teach you these things.



I think his question is a little deeper, like where do those come from? Perhaps he wasn't but it dovetails nicely with what I'm saying.

[Chris]

It's whatever he feels like making up it is
is ow ask him at what point he DOESN'T think he has the right to impose his religious determinations and moral judgments on others.

Isnt it cute that he can't have the discussion without the pictures.


From what I've seen agravan depends on medical science for what he says and it's you make things up to suit your agenda and beliefs.

[Chris]

Said it? And yet it's clear that's what you believe since you claim that you can't put the rights of a woman ahead of the two cells.

Or we can continue to play your little game.



Wow, so busted for putting words in my mouth you try an end around to put thoughts in my head. Try again, jill, or play your little straw man game.

[Chris]

These are the people who support personhood laws. No exceptions. The old men have spoken.



I do not support progressive personhood or any other kind. Why is it you have this compulsive need to argue straw men? Oh, yea, you can't argue.

[Chris]

I wonder if there could be some sort of agreement with the ultra pro lifers that if a mother finds out that her child is going to be severely disabled mentally that she is more than happy to give birth as long as they look after it?



Who should decide that?

This too dovetails nicely into what I'm saying about rights.

[Chris]

They think its G-d"s will. So I doubt it.

There are many reasons to terminate a pregnancy. And many reasons not to



So now you make it up that i believe in God?