23 replies to this topic

[TomKoz]

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?

[BobPistol]

All the rights listed in the bill of rights "shall not be infringed" - some rights are more "right" than others

[Yas]

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

[TyGuy]

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

[TomKoz]

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.

[Trevis]

TyGuy, 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

[TyGuy]

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.

[TyGuy]

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

[TyGuy]

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?

[TyGuy]

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

[TomKoz]

TyGuy, 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!

[TyGuy]

I blame both sides of the statist coin.

[TyGuy]

[Federal Farmer]

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.

[Trevis]

Federal 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, Yesterday, 11:11 PM.

[TyGuy]

Trevis, on 23 May 2013 - 11:10 PM, said:

Federal 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

[BobPistol]

Federal 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.

[w00dc4ip]

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.

[Trevis]

w00dc4ip, 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, Today, 12:54 PM.

[BobPistol]

w00dc4ip, 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.

[jester121]

TomKoz, 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.

[Uncle Harley]

BobPistol, on 24 May 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

w00dc4ip, 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.

[TyGuy]

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.

[Federal Farmer]

Take abortion debates to the back room.