freyasman
Senator
You don't recognize inherent rights? Those that all people are born with?
The Second Amendment
- Thread starter H. Muir
- Start date
You don't recognize inherent rights? Those that all people are born with?
Can those so called rights be compromised or removed by law?
If all people have the same inherent rights, why are there so many violations of those rights? Doesn't seem possible to remove god given...inherent...rights.
freyasman
Senator
You can't remove a person's right, but you can oppress it. Didn't slaves have a right to be free, regardless of the law?
KnotaFrayed
Mayor
And Roe v. Wade, was a 7-2 SCOTUS decision that people are working to repeal or ignore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
Your point is what?
In no SCOTUS decision on guns have all infringements upon all "arms" been deemed illegal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_District_of_Columbia
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-10-04/dc-gun-laws-upheld/50657716/1
http://www.usacarry.com/washington_dc_concealed_carry_permit_information.html
Both Heller and McDonald v. Chicago were about states or the District of Columbia being allowed to supercede federal law and infringe on a "right" however defined, to keep and bear arms.
Even if one considers that "right" to extent to "the people" in service and duty to what is "being necessary to the security of a free state", (the common defense) that being "a well regulated Militia", the Heller and McDonald decisions do not change that and only serve to offer examples of why states or districts cannot infringe on a "right" of people in service to "the common defense" "being necessary to the security of a free state" by enrollment in and service to a "well regulated Militia" To do so would render any defininition of a "well regulated Militia" disfunctional.
In 1792, "a well-regulated Militia" required by law, all able bodied free white men (the only people considered citizens entitled then to vote as prescribed by the Constition), not only to enroll in and train with others so required as a "well regulated Militia, but to furnish their arms, some shot, powder and other provisions and accoutrements. So required, it would be important to ensure individual states could not "infringe" upon their legal obligation to "the common defense" through a "well regulated Militia" of citizen soldiers.
In 2013, "a well regulated Militia" still consists of citizen soldiers who train on a regular scheduled interval (to be an effective "common defense"), but it is no longer a required duty of all citizens entitled to vote or even all able bodied citizens as now described by Amendments that cane subsequent to the Bill of Rights amendments. Based on this, there is no reason to expend any Constitutional right to any sort of defense that is not spoken of in the Constitution. That would mean "the common defense" is the only defense specifically mentioned and it is also related to what is "necessary to the security of a free state", "a well regulated Militia" and all the people, so enrolled and in obligated service to which in 1792 included ALL those defined as citizens entitled to vote then (which BTW were NOT...ALL "the people"). In 2013, the "well regulated Militia" is "organized" by Congress to be the National Guard units of each individual state. That too, does not include ALL "the people" nor does it require anyone to be a member of it who has not volunteered, with enticements and something in exchange for their volunteering and their service, when active. When not active, they are as the founders intended, citizens with jobs outside the military. No longer are well-regulated Militias farmers, bakers, etc, who come together on a village green with their muskets, powder, shot, bayonets and packs, they are larger in number and use far more sophisticated weaponry and other tools of the "trade". They still may be farmers, bakers, etc. but their units and the sophistication of weaponry and war need some full time support in a variety of ways, thus there is a melding of citizen soldiers and a meaure of "professional" ones for an effective "citizen-soldier" fighting force in "the common defense", the entire point of "a well regulated Militia".
To simplify, the federal government cannot be charged with providing "the common defense" by use of citizen soldier Militias if any state in the union could ban those in duty (however they are described) and service to those militia from keeping and bearing arms.
The federal government, through the Preamble of the Constitution is generally charged with providing " the common defense", Congress is more specifically charged wit doing so through Miliita and other forms of military (see Article I, Section 8) and where Militia is concerned, Congress (the legislative branch) is charged with "organizing" the Militia, meaning they define what "miliitia" is. In 1792 it was as described above and in 2013, it is described as the National Guard Units of the individual states which have the same dual role "organized" ("well regulated") militias in 1792 did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
Your point is what?
In no SCOTUS decision on guns have all infringements upon all "arms" been deemed illegal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_District_of_Columbia
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-10-04/dc-gun-laws-upheld/50657716/1
http://www.usacarry.com/washington_dc_concealed_carry_permit_information.html
Both Heller and McDonald v. Chicago were about states or the District of Columbia being allowed to supercede federal law and infringe on a "right" however defined, to keep and bear arms.
Even if one considers that "right" to extent to "the people" in service and duty to what is "being necessary to the security of a free state", (the common defense) that being "a well regulated Militia", the Heller and McDonald decisions do not change that and only serve to offer examples of why states or districts cannot infringe on a "right" of people in service to "the common defense" "being necessary to the security of a free state" by enrollment in and service to a "well regulated Militia" To do so would render any defininition of a "well regulated Militia" disfunctional.
In 1792, "a well-regulated Militia" required by law, all able bodied free white men (the only people considered citizens entitled then to vote as prescribed by the Constition), not only to enroll in and train with others so required as a "well regulated Militia, but to furnish their arms, some shot, powder and other provisions and accoutrements. So required, it would be important to ensure individual states could not "infringe" upon their legal obligation to "the common defense" through a "well regulated Militia" of citizen soldiers.
In 2013, "a well regulated Militia" still consists of citizen soldiers who train on a regular scheduled interval (to be an effective "common defense"), but it is no longer a required duty of all citizens entitled to vote or even all able bodied citizens as now described by Amendments that cane subsequent to the Bill of Rights amendments. Based on this, there is no reason to expend any Constitutional right to any sort of defense that is not spoken of in the Constitution. That would mean "the common defense" is the only defense specifically mentioned and it is also related to what is "necessary to the security of a free state", "a well regulated Militia" and all the people, so enrolled and in obligated service to which in 1792 included ALL those defined as citizens entitled to vote then (which BTW were NOT...ALL "the people"). In 2013, the "well regulated Militia" is "organized" by Congress to be the National Guard units of each individual state. That too, does not include ALL "the people" nor does it require anyone to be a member of it who has not volunteered, with enticements and something in exchange for their volunteering and their service, when active. When not active, they are as the founders intended, citizens with jobs outside the military. No longer are well-regulated Militias farmers, bakers, etc, who come together on a village green with their muskets, powder, shot, bayonets and packs, they are larger in number and use far more sophisticated weaponry and other tools of the "trade". They still may be farmers, bakers, etc. but their units and the sophistication of weaponry and war need some full time support in a variety of ways, thus there is a melding of citizen soldiers and a meaure of "professional" ones for an effective "citizen-soldier" fighting force in "the common defense", the entire point of "a well regulated Militia".
To simplify, the federal government cannot be charged with providing "the common defense" by use of citizen soldier Militias if any state in the union could ban those in duty (however they are described) and service to those militia from keeping and bearing arms.
The federal government, through the Preamble of the Constitution is generally charged with providing " the common defense", Congress is more specifically charged wit doing so through Miliita and other forms of military (see Article I, Section 8) and where Militia is concerned, Congress (the legislative branch) is charged with "organizing" the Militia, meaning they define what "miliitia" is. In 1792 it was as described above and in 2013, it is described as the National Guard Units of the individual states which have the same dual role "organized" ("well regulated") militias in 1792 did.
They may have had the right in some nebulous academic treatise...but it didn't exist in reality. If a right can be oppressed, how can it be inherent and god given? Does that then mean that oppressing people is a right?
KnotaFrayed
Mayor
Would that be like suppressing the CDC's right to publish gun injury stats?
KnotaFrayed
Mayor
The CDC is a government entity -- it has no rights not expressly granted to the government via the Constitution. Congress can limit CDC's speech to its hearts content.
Thankfully, you were not charged with creating our government, which does rest on the idea of inherent or inalienable (or, more legalistically, alloidial) rights.
freyasman
Senator
Preventing someone from exercising a right does not mean the right doesn't exist. I don't understand what you're asking about having a "right to oppress other's rights"; can you clarify that?
freyasman
Senator
I disagree
Including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...
The government can take your life. They can send you to war...or prison. These are likely to interfere with one's liberty as well. Pursuit of happiness? OK...here's a game. Let's say I like to inject heroin and smoke marijuana with my gay lover. Let's say that makes me happy. And that marrying that lover would really make me happy, especially if I could openly smoke a big fat Rasta joint at the wedding.
My "pursuit of happiness"...a supposed inalienable right...is clearly impacted by federal laws prohibiting those actions. My rights inalienable have been infringed.
And each such restriction is bound by limits on the restriction. You can't be deprived of these inherent liberties, rights, without due process of law.
NCmusicman
Governor
That is an excellent point that todays liberal socialist version of Democrats tend to ignore and/or hate.
The questions fits perfectly into the discussion. Does anyone have a right to oppress someone else?
If one cannot avail themselves of something, the existence of that object is pretty much a phantom. If I have the "right" to vote, but the "right" is made too difficult to exercise, that "right" has been oppressed. It doesn't fully exist and for some exists only as a concept, not as a reality.
Arkady
President
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Aha...my rights can be taken away by law.
freyasman
Senator
I'm okay with you doing all of that... it actually sounds like a mix of my in-laws lifestyle's. Yes, your rights have been infringed.
