Hmmmm, shall not be infringed?
#1
Posted Yesterday, 08:15 PM
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?
#2
Posted Yesterday, 08:21 PM
#3
Posted Yesterday, 08:28 PM
#4
Posted Yesterday, 08:42 PM
#5
Posted Yesterday, 08:49 PM
#6
Posted Yesterday, 08:51 PM
TyGuy, on 23 May 2013 - 08:42 PM, said:
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
Posted Yesterday, 08:59 PM
#8
Posted Yesterday, 09:05 PM
#9
Posted Yesterday, 09:07 PM
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?
#10
Posted Yesterday, 09:08 PM
#12
Posted Yesterday, 09:14 PM
#13
Posted Yesterday, 09:15 PM
#14
Posted Yesterday, 10:57 PM
Quote
#15
Posted Yesterday, 11:10 PM
Federal Farmer, on 23 May 2013 - 10:57 PM, said:
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, Yesterday, 11:11 PM.
#16
Posted Yesterday, 11:15 PM
Trevis, on 23 May 2013 - 11:10 PM, said:
Federal Farmer, on 23 May 2013 - 10:57 PM, said:
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
#17
Posted Today, 06:46 AM
Federal Farmer, on 23 May 2013 - 10:57 PM, said:
And this includes the right to life, which does not even exist thanks to Roe, and Schiavo.
#18
Posted Today, 12:44 PM
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.
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
Posted Today, 12:54 PM
w00dc4ip, on 24 May 2013 - 12:44 PM, said:
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, Today, 12:54 PM.
#20
Posted Today, 12:56 PM
w00dc4ip, on 24 May 2013 - 12:44 PM, said:
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.
#21
Posted Today, 12:59 PM
TomKoz, on 23 May 2013 - 08:49 PM, said:
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
Posted Today, 01:03 PM
BobPistol, on 24 May 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:
w00dc4ip, on 24 May 2013 - 12:44 PM, said:
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
Posted Today, 01:13 PM
#24
Posted Today, 01:53 PM
Quote
3 user(s) are reading this topic
1 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users
-
xbaltzx











