You might want to my posts before quoting and responding. Laws can be changed. Rights cannot be.

So what you are saying is that it is false to say, in the U.S., that someone has the right to remain silent or that they have the right to counsel.

Please name one "right" that people have, according to YOUR definition, that cannot (and, indeed, has not sometime/somewhere) been taken away because a law was changed. About the only one I can think of is the right to think whatever you want within your own mind as long as you don't express it in any way, shape, or form. Though there is a push to effectively make certain types of thought illegal.

 

So what you are saying is that it is false to say, in the U.S., that someone has the right to remain silent or that they have the right to counsel.

Did you read me saying that?

Please name one "right" that people have, according to YOUR definition, that cannot (and, indeed, has not sometime/somewhere) been taken away because a law was changed.

The one you mentioned. But it's not my definition. I'm not a founding father. Basic rights of man were most effectively defined in the Declaration of Independence.

 

Not quite: Rights can only be sacrificed to law, not given by it. As stated in our Constitution, we have the right to everything not specifically ceded by law to government in the Constitution.

Now if only Congress, the President, and/or the Supreme Court (any of the three over the last century) would (or would have) actually read that part of the Constitution....

 

Did you read me saying that?

What I see are your usual tactics. You say that he doesn't have the right, it is pointed out that he did have the right according to the laws, you claim that it isn't a right because laws can be changed and rights can't, you are asked whether commonly stated rights are therefore not rights since laws can be changed to take them away. Since you can't reconcile your claims, you then claim to have not made them. Pointless to continue.

 

What I see are your usual tactics. You say that he doesn't have the right, it is pointed out that he did have the right according to the laws, you claim that it isn't a right because laws can be changed and rights can't, you are asked whether commonly stated rights are therefore not rights since laws can be changed to take them away. Since you can't reconcile your claims, you then claim to have not made them. Pointless to continue.

What I see are your usual tactics. You asked me about something I didn't state, and when you didn't get the answer you wanted, you conflated your irrelevant question with what I actually said. Yeah, pointless.

 

Where is that stated?

Thank you for acknowledging that you haven't bothered to read the Constitution. You might take a gander at the Ninth and Tenth amendments.

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

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

This is an area were conservatives tend to be hypocritical since, while they are generally strict constructionalists in terms of the Constitution, they conveniently ignore the Ninth Amendment when claiming that the right to privacy isn't provided for in the Constitution since that right is the basis for several Supreme Court rulings that they aren't in favor of.

Nothing needs to be changed in the Constitution. The 2nd amendment isn't a "free for all" for open carry. If that is the case, then why are only two states mentioned for open carry in airports? If everyone has such a right, why isn't it allowed in all 50 states?

Straw man argument (gee, ain't that a shocker). No one has said that it is a "free for all". As has already been stated in other posts, any right can be lawfully taken away from a given individual by due process. The issue is whether they can be taken away wholesale and pass Constitutional muster. There are many laws that have been passed and enforced and later found unconstitutional, including several decisions in recent years striking down state and local restrictions on the exercise of the 2nd Amendment by individuals who have not been stripped of those rights via due process. The question of whether the government has the power to arbitrarily restrict that exercise on property/buildings owned/operated/controlled by the government is an unsettled issue and it is something that ebbs and flows continuously across the nation.

 

Thank you for acknowledging that you haven't bothered to read the Constitution. You might take a gander at the Ninth and Tenth amendments.

I acknowledge not such thing. I merely asked a question. As usual, you blow it up into something it wasn't. I expect better, especially from a moderator. What a disappointment.

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

This doesn't answer my question. The question we have a right to EVERYTHING (quoted verbatim) This isn't what the amendment is saying. You make a poor-ass assumption about me, and then utterly fail to provide a truthful response to my question.

Tenth: 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.

Same thing. This simply says what is already laid out, that people are granted the power to govern theirselves. You sill have not shown me where everything is a 'right' until ceded to law. Which in fact, would make no sense.

isn't provided for in the Constitution since that right is the basis for several Supreme Court rulings that they aren't in favor of.

Sure it is, in the 4th ammendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

Straw man argument (gee, ain't that a shocker). No one has said that it is a "free for all".

Sure is has, the 2nd amendment is used all the time to argue just such a thing. Gee, what a shocker you continue to use personal slights in your arguments, when you're charge is to prevent such things.

 

Wow, this really overdrives my logic.
The philosophy behind this thread is making me nauseous through its completeness.

 

Wow, this really overdrives my logic.
The philosophy behind this thread is making me nauseous through its completeness.

When I posted it as just an aside, I never realized I would start a gun fight.
....Stepping away from the thread now.
Max.

 

When I posted it as just an aside, I never realized I would start a gun fight.
....Stepping away from the thread now.
Max.

Sure; and the crazy gun toting Americans who defend the right to bear arms (Isn't a bees nest?). It probably went like; Hmn (Max is thinking), you know the only thing that would heat up the forum is a good old fashioned gun fight.

It's like starting a bar fight and then saying; I'm sorry; did I do that; lol.

 

Yep. And despite it being legal, how many more bloodbaths have occurred at airports where it's legal than where it isn't.

Law abiding armed citizens are NOT the problem, and disarming them will NOT get guns out of the hands of criminals.

Normally I'm not a fan of people exercising their rights (and it IS their right) in this manner as I think it is generally counter-productive. But given the recent tests that demonstrated that weapons could be snuck through TSA screenings 95% of the time -- which do nothing but confirm my assertions that I've been making since before TSA even existed, namely that airport security screenings, as it is conducted, are nothing except security theater and do virtually nothing to actually prevent a criminal from getting a weapon on the airplane -- I'm not so sure that his statements aren't quite reasonable.

When I was a kid (8 - 12 years old) I was involved in competitive shooting and our range was in the basement of a converted church near downtown Denver. We had a lot of kids (ages 8 to 18) that had to ride the city busses to and from range meets, which were held four evening of the week and on Saturday afternoons. Some of them couldn't afford rifle cases and so they simply carried their rifles openly with their ammunition stuffed in their pockets. That had gone on for decades (the Denver tolleys were used before the busses replaced them) and there was never once an incident of any kind.

When my dad was a kid (1930's) it was extremely common for kids, particularly boys, to bring their guns to school. The reason was simple, they were often responsible for shooting dinner on the way home.

America should have compulsory gun carry from age 7 upwards and free ammo bunkers on every street corner.

It would hasten the novelty wearing off somewhat.

 

When I posted it as just an aside, I never realized I would start a gun fight.
....Stepping away from the thread now.
Max.

<ad hominem attacks removed>

 

oh god it's filling up my alert box
make it stop
how do i unsee this thread?

 

This doesn't answer my question. The question we have a right to EVERYTHING (quoted verbatim)

So you took away from "Not quite: Rights can only be sacrificed to law, not given by it. As stated in our Constitution, we have the right to everything not specifically ceded by law to government in the Constitution." that is was claiming that we have a right to EVERYTHING, period.

Real good reasoning there, Saul would be proud.

Sure it is, in the 4th ammendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

Even if you are correct, which is still unsettled, you are now claiming that something (privacy) that can be taken away if the laws change is a "right" when you started off claiming that guns rights aren't rights because laws can be changed and that rights cannot be changed.

But you are right on one point -- I should refrain from participating in discussions such as this, particularly since I am also a moderator.

 

oh god it's filling up my alert box
make it stop
how do i unsee this thread?

You can unsubscribe from the thread. Go to the top of the page just above the first post and on the right hand side is a link to "Unwatch Thread". That should stop the alerts. This is how you do it in the old (blue) theme. I'm not sure how you do it in the new (orange) theme.

I'm going to do the same thing so that I don't get pulled back in to the fray.

 

I for one am cooking up some popcorn, pulling up a chair and well lets face it, some days I just gotta be me!

<ad hominem attack, intentional or not, removed>
(and maybe accidentally learn more about our US Constitution, Bill of Rights and its Amendments. )

Nah. The pointy stick is fun enough without education.

 

So you took away from "Not quite: Rights can only be sacrificed to law, not given by it. As stated in our Constitution, we have the right to everything not specifically ceded by law to government in the Constitution." that is was claiming that we have a right to EVERYTHING, period.

See bolded text. Yeah, I tend to take things just as they are written.

Real good reasoning there, Saul would be proud.

Aside from the stupid, off-topic 'Saul' comment, thanks. Like I said, no reasoning required, really.

Even if you are correct, which is still unsettled, you are now claiming that something (privacy) that can be taken away if the laws change is a "right" when you started off claiming that guns rights aren't rights because laws can be changed and that rights cannot be changed.

Nope. I said rights don't change. I never said laws may not be passed that infringe in those rights. A law may be passed to take away the right granted by the 4th amendment, but it then has to survive a SCOTUS review (assuming a case is brought/heard) As an ABSOLUTE statement, I may not be completely correct on this point. I am aware that rights are revoked sometimes, maybe even in extremely rare cases in the US (which I think is the legal system under which we are having this discussion) although I no of know such occurrence. This is but one distinction, a law can simply be repealed by another law. Rights cannot.

But you are right on one point -- I should refrain from participating in discussions such as this, particularly since I am also a moderator.

My point was not that you should refrain from participating in discussions such as these, it was you should refrain from personal insults and other off-topic comments that violate the TOS.

 

See bolded text. Yeah, I tend to take things just as they are written.

So, if you had a son and told him, "You can join any sport you want except football," that it would be okay with you if they went and joined football since you told them, "You can join any sport you want."

 

@korchoi Apparently Unwatching a thread doesn't prevent the alerts. I'll bring that up to the admins.

 

So, if you had a son and told him, "You can join any sport you want except football," that it would be okay with you if they went and joined football since you told them, "You can join any sport you want."

Nope. My point doesn't change just because I didn't write out the entire quote. In other words, The statement is not taken out of context, because I was responding to the original intent and purpose of the quote. But just to satisfy you, I'll write out the entire quote now:

Not quite: Rights can only be sacrificed to law, not given by it. As stated in our Constitution, we have the right to everything not specifically ceded by law to government in the Constitution.

You can substitute the above into my post, and nothing substantial about my post changes.