Originally posted by TheWall
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Mass Shooting Las Vegas...
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Joel View PostYes, it seems to me that the courts have carved out lots of exceptions to what the Constitutions says, that are really un-Constitutional. And not just with the 2nd Amendment. In the 20th century, SCOTUS carved out exceptions for when its okay for the government to do what the Constitution seems clearly to prohibit, e.g. if the government has a "rational basis" for, or a "compelling interest" in, having the law. When the 1st Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law", what kind of interpreting is it to say that that means "Congress shall make no law unless Congress shall be sufficiently interested in making such law"? Or how do they maintain with a straight face that compulsory military service is not involuntary servitude (13th Amendment)? Or when SCOTUS holds that regulation of most things that are not even commerce is regulation of interstate commerce. Or that the 4th Amendment can be ignored if we just label the search an "administrative search". They have lost much credibility of being a good interpreter of the Constitution. The vast majority of what the U.S. federal government does is unconstitutional, which implies that SCOTUS has been either complicit in permitting it or incompetent to prevent it.Originally posted by Sparko View PostYour argument is that the very government that is infringing on the right is qualified to say that it isn't infringing on our right. I can't wait to see how your respond when that government decides that preachers can't speak out against homosexuality in the church like they did in Canada.Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostNot great, but better that than being wholly defenseless. Firing a gun is not exactly difficult.
as my brother told me I had about 95% accuracy and 50% efficiencyLast edited by RumTumTugger; 10-11-2017, 08:06 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostWhy, does the Constitution, i.e. the authors thereof, determine what is a natural right, and what is not?
Originally posted by Adrift View PostThe Constitution isn't a divine writing. It was written by men.
I think this leads into questions about what exactly are inalienable rights
The idea of inalienable rights was in contrast to political theorists like Thomas Hobbes who argued that rulers should have absolute power, on the grounds that a people without a government would consent to set up a ruler in the first place and transfer to that ruler all their rights. Then the ruler would have absolute power over them from then on. Others argued for absolutism for existing states, such as France or Spain, that the state held everyone's rights, claiming the people had given them all up.
is the right to a gun really a right to "property"?
Is the right to property itself truly an inalienable right.
And if the right to property is truly an inalienable right, why does the government make the right to the property ownership of guns inalienable, but not the right to, say, heroin, or anthrax, inalienable.
The federal government has no delegated authority to pass laws restricting the possession of heroin, etc. Any such existing federal statutes are unconstitutional, thus illegal. And that is independent of the question of whether they are rights.
Is it a right derived from the Bible? From God? From all people, or only certain people?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joel View PostIf it is anything, it's a compact. The question of its interpretation is who are the parties and to what obligations did they consent.
Originally posted by Joel View PostInalienable means not able to be given away or otherwise surrendered.
Originally posted by Joel View PostThe idea of inalienable rights was in contrast to political theorists like Thomas Hobbes who argued that rulers should have absolute power, on the grounds that a people without a government would consent to set up a ruler in the first place and transfer to that ruler all their rights. Then the ruler would have absolute power over them from then on. Others argued for absolutism for existing states, such as France or Spain, that the state held everyone's rights, claiming the people had given them all up.
Originally posted by Joel View PostOf course. It's a question of ownership.
Originally posted by Joel View PostAs above, the right to the article itself is alienable (the owner can sell or gift it), but the right to property is not. That is, without the owner's consent, taking the article is theft. The owner can consent to transfer the article, but it makes no sense to say the owner can transfer away the truth that taking his property without his consent is theft.
Originally posted by Joel View PostIf you are talking about the Constitution, the 9th Amendment says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." and the 10th Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The federal government has no delegated authority to pass laws restricting the possession of heroin, etc. Any such existing federal statutes are unconstitutional, thus illegal. And that is independent of the question of whether they are rights.
Originally posted by Joel View PostMost advocates argue that rights arise from human nature.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Terraceth View PostWhen Antonin Scalia, perhaps the most strongest pro-gun-rights justice that the country has ever had, says that there are still limitations to the Second Amendment, I consider that to be a very strong argument that there are in fact limitations to the Second Amendment.
The Canadian courts made that decision based on the Canadian constitution, which is different than the United States constitution.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostI guess my question then is, does it work in other first world nations? And if so, then why can it not work here? Cultural differences?
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jedidiah View PostYes the government does not seem to respect the Constitution except where it is convenient.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostI guess my question then is, does it work in other first world nations? And if so, then why can it not work here? Cultural differences?Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by RumTumTugger View PostI can testify to that. but a little training and knowledge about the gun you are using will help with efficiency I ought to know first rifle my brother let me go target shooting with was a bolt action(I think that is what it was called i had to cock it to cycle the bullets into the chamber every time I shot it. Next Gun wasn't and my brother forgot to tell me the difference so I did the same thing I did with the first Gun and ended up ejecting half the bullets. I had some nice groupings but less shots
as my brother told me I had about 95% accuracy and 50% efficiencyVeritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by Terraceth View PostTrick question: It doesn't. It determines what legal rights there are. And the Constitution quite clearly establishes a legal right for guns that it does not establish for cars.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostWrong, yes they did, but the Founders had no conception of what weapons might exist in the 21st century, nor that motor vehicles would exist. The Constitution was written by fallible men in the context of the times, not writ in stone for all time.
The Constitution is indeed not written in stone - that is why there is an amendment process. Let's follow it, shall we?Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joel View PostIt doesn't even do that. That is made explicit in the 9th Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
I would also suggest that the 2nd Amendment does not establish the legal right, but presupposes its existence. It makes explicit what would have been implicit anyway.
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostThe Founders did not care what weapons might exist in the 21st century.
The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, whatever those might be.
The Constitution is indeed not written in stone - that is why there is an amendment process. Let's follow it, shall we?
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostWrong, yes they did, but the Founders had no conception of what weapons might exist in the 21st century, nor that motor vehicles would exist. The Constitution was written by fallible men in the context of the times, not writ in stone for all time.
Similarly, they didn't conceive of houses built with modern building materials complete with indoor toilets, electricity, air conditioning and central heating but nobody would seriously maintain that such structures aren't covered by the Fourth Amendment's provision against unlawful searches.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Slave4Christ, Today, 07:59 PM
|
0 responses
14 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Slave4Christ
Today, 07:59 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 03:49 PM
|
18 responses
146 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Ronson
Today, 02:31 PM
|
||
Started by seer, 06-28-2024, 11:42 AM
|
39 responses
204 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Stoic
Today, 02:57 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 06-28-2024, 10:24 AM
|
23 responses
163 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Ronson
Today, 07:16 PM
|
||
Started by VonTastrophe, 06-28-2024, 10:22 AM
|
33 responses
194 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Slave4Christ
Today, 07:07 PM
|
Comment