Jump to content


Hmmmm, shall not be infringed?


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 TomKoz

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 582 posts
  • Joined: 04-February 10

Posted 23 May 2013 - 08:15 PM

I was just wondering, has a case ever been brought before the US Supreme Court on grounds of "shall not be infringed"?  I know "technically" the SC doesn't / isn't supposed to "interpret" the law, but how can a local government prevent someone from carrying a firearm on a bus/train or in a park without "infringing" on our right to keep and bear arms???

The SC seems to have defined "keep", the seemed to have defined "bear".  Have they ever defined "shall not be infringed"?  If not, why not?
Stay Alert ... Stay Alive !!

#2 BobPistol

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,741 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 13

Posted 23 May 2013 - 08:21 PM

All the rights listed in the bill of rights "shall not be infringed" - some rights are more "right" than others :)
The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#3 Yas

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,947 posts
  • Joined: 07-February 09

Posted 23 May 2013 - 08:28 PM

Ammunition for the next Heller, McDonald, Shepard, Growder, or  Queen lawsuit.

#4 TyGuy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 7,232 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 09

Posted 23 May 2013 - 08:42 PM

We are so far down the road of infringing on all of our rights, except maybe the 3rd amendment, that that battle done with.
Meh

#5 TomKoz

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 582 posts
  • Joined: 04-February 10

Posted 23 May 2013 - 08:49 PM

As far as I'm concerned, that battle is NOT done with.  I will always fight the good fight.  The battle is only over when one side is no longer willing/able to fight.
Stay Alert ... Stay Alive !!

#6 Trevis

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 347 posts
  • Joined: 19-October 07

Posted 23 May 2013 - 08:51 PM

View PostTyGuy, on 23 May 2013 - 08:42 PM, said:

We are so far down the road of infringing on all of our rights, except maybe the 3rd amendment, that that battle done with.

Ever heard of the DHS? What are they but a standing army that we quarter with our tax dollars.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2



#7 TyGuy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 7,232 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 09

Posted 23 May 2013 - 08:59 PM

We don't quarter them in our homes, but yes I get your point.  I am kinda passed liking any law at this point.  Every law is punishable by death if you think about it logically.
Meh

#8 TyGuy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 7,232 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 09

Posted 23 May 2013 - 09:05 PM

WTH I can't copy and paste, and my return key isn't working in the editor
Meh

#9 TyGuy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 7,232 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 09

Posted 23 May 2013 - 09:07 PM

The State (not Illinois, the general government):  Don’t speed.
Man: Why not?
The State (TS): Cause you’ll get a fine.
Man (M): What if I don’t pay the fine?
TS: You’ll get a bigger fine.
M: What if I don’t pay that fine?
TS: We’ll take you to jail.
M:  What if I refuse to go with you?
TS:  We’ll use force.

M:  What if I respond with force?
TS:  We’ll kill you.

Kinda harsh for a speeding ticket eh?
Meh

#10 TyGuy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 7,232 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 09

Posted 23 May 2013 - 09:08 PM

I'm not saying don't follow the law, just realize that you follow the law out of fear.
Meh

#11 TomKoz

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 582 posts
  • Joined: 04-February 10

Posted 23 May 2013 - 09:13 PM

View PostTyGuy, on 23 May 2013 - 09:08 PM, said:

I'm not saying don't follow the law, just realize that you follow the law out of fear.

Progressive/Liberal (not Libertarian) Policies / Programs soooo good - they are mandated!
Stay Alert ... Stay Alive !!

#12 TyGuy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 7,232 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 09

Posted 23 May 2013 - 09:14 PM

I blame both sides of the statist coin.
Meh

#13 TyGuy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 7,232 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 09

Posted 23 May 2013 - 09:15 PM

Posted Image
Meh

#14 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Moderator
  • 8,021 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 23 May 2013 - 10:57 PM

Not with respect to 2A, but SCOTUS has essentially ruled that no right is absolute, regardless of what the BOR says.  This was mentioned in Heller by the majority, so it seems highly unlikely they will overturn that.

Quote

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
--George Orwell

#15 Trevis

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 347 posts
  • Joined: 19-October 07

Posted 23 May 2013 - 11:10 PM

View PostFederal Farmer, on 23 May 2013 - 10:57 PM, said:

Not with respect to 2A, but SCOTUS has essentially ruled that no right is absolute, regardless of what the BOR says.  This was mentioned in Heller by the majority, so it seems highly unlikely they will overturn that.

I have a serious problem with that. Rights are absolute, it's the consequences of those rights which get sticky. I find it disturbing that it can be said that no right is absolute. That is the slickest slope I have ever heard of. Basically, anyone is expendable if it's expedient. Your right to life isn't absolute... wtf.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Edited by Trevis, 23 May 2013 - 11:11 PM.


#16 TyGuy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 7,232 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 09

Posted 23 May 2013 - 11:15 PM

View PostTrevis, on 23 May 2013 - 11:10 PM, said:

View PostFederal Farmer, on 23 May 2013 - 10:57 PM, said:

Not with respect to 2A, but SCOTUS has essentially ruled that no right is absolute, regardless of what the BOR says.  This was mentioned in Heller by the majority, so it seems highly unlikely they will overturn that.

I have a serious problem with that. Rights are absolute, it's the consequences of those rights which get sticky. I find it disturbing that it can be said that no right is absolute. That is the slickest slope I have ever heard of. Basically, anyone is expendable if it's expedient. Your right to life isn't absolute... wtf.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Absolutely
Meh

#17 BobPistol

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,741 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 13

Posted Yesterday, 06:46 AM

View PostFederal Farmer, on 23 May 2013 - 10:57 PM, said:

Not with respect to 2A, but SCOTUS has essentially ruled that no right is absolute, regardless of what the BOR says.  This was mentioned in Heller by the majority, so it seems highly unlikely they will overturn that.

And this includes the right to life, which does not even exist thanks to Roe, and Schiavo.
The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#18 w00dc4ip

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 778 posts
  • Joined: 17-July 07

Posted Yesterday, 12:44 PM

No right is absolute, your rights end where someone else's begin.  Drawing that ever-moving line is where this gets difficult.

The logical argument we (2A supporters) always make is that we have a right to life, and therefore self-defense (to protect the right to life), and therefore a right to keep and bear arms (to provide the necessary tools to support the right to self-defense).

If I have a right to life, then I have a right to food (as food is necessary to sustain life), and therefore a right to the land necessary to grow food.  But, what if someone else already owns the land, do I still have a right to it?  Does my right to life supersceded someone else's property rights?

To take it to the abortion debate (sine Bob already went there) does an unborn child's right to life superscede a woman's right to life (and therefore her right to make medical decisions regarding her body?)

Not taking a position here and definitely don't want to start an abortion debate.  I'm just pointing out the obvious nature of the statement that "No rights are absolute".  It is as obvious of a statement as saying that an individual is primarily responsible for their own self-defense.
When my country, into which I had just set my foot, was set on fire about my ears, it was time to stir. It was time for every man to stir. - Thomas Paine

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

Doesn't matter what the press says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: the requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world - "No, you move." - Captain America

#19 Trevis

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 347 posts
  • Joined: 19-October 07

Posted Yesterday, 12:54 PM

View Postw00dc4ip, on 24 May 2013 - 12:44 PM, said:

No right is absolute, your rights end where someone else's begin.  Drawing that ever-moving line is where this gets difficult.

The logical argument we (2A supporters) always make is that we have a right to life, and therefore self-defense (to protect the right to life), and therefore a right to keep and bear arms (to provide the necessary tools to support the right to self-defense).

If I have a right to life, then I have a right to food (as food is necessary to sustain life), and therefore a right to the land necessary to grow food.  But, what if someone else already owns the land, do I still have a right to it?  Does my right to life supersceded someone else's property rights?

To take it to the abortion debate (sine Bob already went there) does an unborn child's right to life superscede a woman's right to life (and therefore her right to make medical decisions regarding her body?)

Not taking a position here and definitely don't want to start an abortion debate.  I'm just pointing out the obvious nature of the statement that "No rights are absolute".  It is as obvious of a statement as saying that an individual is primarily responsible for their own self-defense.

I think I need to clarify, as you misunderstand. You have the right to life, as in you can have your life as long as you wish to keep it. That implies responsibility on your part. Food is part of your responsibility to your own life. You don't want to make the effort, your choice. You're not guaranteed anything but yourself.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Edited by Trevis, Yesterday, 12:54 PM.


#20 BobPistol

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,741 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 13

Posted Yesterday, 12:56 PM

View Postw00dc4ip, on 24 May 2013 - 12:44 PM, said:

To take it to the abortion debate (sine Bob already went there) does an unborn child's right to life superscede a woman's right to life (and therefore her right to make medical decisions regarding her body?)

This is not about what she does with her body.  This is about what she does with someone else's body, namely the baby's.  Shall we live in a society where nobody gets any human rights unless they get permission from one person?  
Human rights are for all, not for the chosen.
The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#21 jester121

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 173 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 13

Posted Yesterday, 12:59 PM

View PostTomKoz, on 23 May 2013 - 08:49 PM, said:

The battle is only over when one side is no longer willing/able to fight.

No, it can also be over if he's the only person who shows up to a fight and everyone else ignores him -- that makes him a nut standing out in a field jousting at windmills.

#22 Uncle Harley

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,009 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 11

Posted Yesterday, 01:03 PM

View PostBobPistol, on 24 May 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

View Postw00dc4ip, on 24 May 2013 - 12:44 PM, said:

To take it to the abortion debate (sine Bob already went there) does an unborn child's right to life superscede a woman's right to life (and therefore her right to make medical decisions regarding her body?)

This is not about what she does with her body.  This is about what she does with someone else's body, namely the baby's.  Shall we live in a society where nobody gets any human rights unless they get permission from one person?  
Human rights are for all, not for the chosen.


The unborn baby has a moral right to life, but unfortunatly  not a constutitional one, last I checked our constution guarentees rights to citizens of our country and to be a citizen you  have to be naturally born here, or pettition to become a citizen and go through the proper channels and neither of which can be done from the womb.

#23 TyGuy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 7,232 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 09

Posted Yesterday, 01:13 PM

If it is truly a choice between one and the other then I consider the same as I do triage, save one if you can't save both.  Short of that I consider the baby a human with human rights including, but not limited to, the right to life.
Meh

#24 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Moderator
  • 8,021 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted Yesterday, 01:53 PM

Take abortion debates to the back room.

Quote

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
--George Orwell

#25 w00dc4ip

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 778 posts
  • Joined: 17-July 07

Posted Yesterday, 07:14 PM

I knew I should have avoided the abortion message completely, but it is such a great way to demonstrate the gray line in "rights". My apologies Farmer.

And Trevis, I think you're missing what I'm saying, but your final statement is correct, the only real guarantee or "right" anyone has is their choice.

Let's keep it in the realm of the 2A to avoid getting off topic again.  No right is absolute.  Your right to keep and bear arms ends at my property line, unless I give you permission to carry on my property.  However, should you choose to infringe upon my property rights and carry a firearm on my property against my wishes, what is my recourse?  When it comes down to it, assuming intelligent heads don't prevail, escalation to a confrontation to the point where one of us takes the other's life.  See TyGuy's post #9 in this topic for the government example of this scenario.  What is government other than an "official" extension of our choices as individuals to live in sociatey beneficial to the health and safety of all individuals.  Government exists only through the consent of the governed.  You can always choose not to follow the law, just do it in a country with a weak government or be aware of the potential consequences..

In the United States we have a society that values individualism, and therefore our organized government attempts to protect the rights of individuals.  However, no right is absolute.  Much like you said, the only guarantee is yourself and whatever abilities and choices you make as an individual.
When my country, into which I had just set my foot, was set on fire about my ears, it was time to stir. It was time for every man to stir. - Thomas Paine

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

Doesn't matter what the press says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: the requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world - "No, you move." - Captain America

#26 BobPistol

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,741 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 13

Posted Yesterday, 07:51 PM

View Postw00dc4ip, on 24 May 2013 - 07:14 PM, said:

I knew I should have avoided the abortion message completely, but it is such a great way to demonstrate the gray line in "rights". My apologies Farmer.

Please show me one instance where my right to life can be used to infringe on someone else's human rights.   Without the right to life, no other rights exist.  Dead people can't vote (except Chicago and other big cities where voter fraud is rampant), can't marry, can't own property, can't speak, can't have any human rights, nor can they excercise any human rights.

The right to life, is first and foremost.  It is pretty much absolute.  It is the foundation to all human rights.  No right to life = no human rights.
The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#27 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Moderator
  • 8,021 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted Yesterday, 07:57 PM

View PostBobPistol, on 24 May 2013 - 07:51 PM, said:

View Postw00dc4ip, on 24 May 2013 - 07:14 PM, said:

I knew I should have avoided the abortion message completely, but it is such a great way to demonstrate the gray line in "rights". My apologies Farmer.

Please show me one instance where my right to life can be used to infringe on someone else's human rights.   Without the right to life, no other rights exist.  Dead people can't vote (except Chicago and other big cities where voter fraud is rampant), can't marry, can't own property, can't speak, can't have any human rights, nor can they excercise any human rights.

The right to life, is first and foremost.  It is pretty much absolute.  It is the foundation to all human rights.  No right to life = no human rights.

If we two are locked in a room with no food and are starving to death does your right to life empower you to take mine?  I know your answer, which is correct.  No.  So your right to life doesn't overrule my right to life and vice versa.  Same scenario but I have food but refuse to share?  Does your right to life empower you to steal my property?

Quote

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
--George Orwell

#28 defaultdotxbe

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 994 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 11

Posted Today, 12:39 AM

View PostFederal Farmer, on 24 May 2013 - 07:57 PM, said:

View PostBobPistol, on 24 May 2013 - 07:51 PM, said:

View Postw00dc4ip, on 24 May 2013 - 07:14 PM, said:

I knew I should have avoided the abortion message completely, but it is such a great way to demonstrate the gray line in "rights". My apologies Farmer.

Please show me one instance where my right to life can be used to infringe on someone else's human rights.   Without the right to life, no other rights exist.  Dead people can't vote (except Chicago and other big cities where voter fraud is rampant), can't marry, can't own property, can't speak, can't have any human rights, nor can they excercise any human rights.

The right to life, is first and foremost.  It is pretty much absolute.  It is the foundation to all human rights.  No right to life = no human rights.

If we two are locked in a room with no food and are starving to death does your right to life empower you to take mine?  I know your answer, which is correct.  No.  So your right to life doesn't overrule my right to life and vice versa.  Same scenario but I have food but refuse to share?  Does your right to life empower you to steal my property?
That's a question that has plagued mankind for as long as we have been intelligent enough to ask such a question. If I have enough food to feed two, should I share it with another, or is it mine to do with what I want? If another has enough food for two, should they share it with me or should they keep it for what they want? Do a person's rights to property outweigh another's right to life (and vice versa)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users