Hmmmm, shall not be infringed?

[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]

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]

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]

http://www.westernfreepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Statism.jpg

[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]

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... What the hey!!!.

 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[TyGuy]

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... What the hey!!!.

 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Absolutely

[BobPistol]

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]

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

[BobPistol]

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]

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]

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.

[w00dc4ip]

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.

[BobPistol]

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.

[Federal Farmer]

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?

[defaultdotxbe]

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)

[TomKoz]

My humble opinion is that NOBODY has a right to infringe on you, your possessions, or your labor. And you have no right to infringe on theirs.

 

Example above regarding food, if one person is starving the person with plenty of food should have no "legal" obligation to provide for the other. He may feel an emotion or moral need to volunteer his possessions to aid the other, but should not be legally required to. That would be infringing on the rights of the person that labored for his food supply.

 

Same goes for health care. Nobody has a Right to health care. Making health care a right would force another (doctor/nurse/parmacutical producer) to labor for those in need. That would be slavery!

 

Regarding 2nd Amendment: my Right to keep & BEAR arms infringes on NOBODY. If an individual does not want me bearing arms on his property, his right to his possessions must be recognized, otherwise I/you would be infringing on his Rights.

 

Again, keeping & BEARing arms infringes on nobody's rights - until you do.

[BobPistol]

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.

 

By saying that neither of us have the right to kill each other that shows that the right to life is absolute. That's my point.

 

The fact that both of us are alive in the first place and that nobody has infringed on both of our right to life, allows us to discuss what OTHER human rights we have. Without the right to life, no other human rights exist.

 

That's why the 2A is so important. It is tied in to the right to life. Self-defense. The right to defend those I love. The right to defend other's lives.