On Rights
Haven't had any plans to post here, but thought this article could be of some use for some of you guys:
http://www.sidis.net/rights2.htm
http://www.sidis.net/rights2.htm
0
-
Great read Max.
Thanks.
BTW are you state side yet?0 -
quote:Originally posted by freemind
BTW are you state side yet?
Flying in tomorrow.0 -
Glad to see you hanging around! Great read.
Lance0 -
Good to hear form you Max. 0 -
Good read. All of this is food for thought. But there are some 'rights' which are more important than others. ie. the 2nd Amendment is the 'enforcement clause' of the Constitution, thus all other rights are DEPENDENT on the RTKABA's.
But even this 'right' requires some 'management' of those whom exercise it, much to the dislike of the 'idealists'!0 -
not sure why i posted what i posted here earlier, it doesn't make sense now, hence I am editing it out. *shrug* sometimes I question my own sanity. 0 -
One doesn't run from the enemy, Rock. They are all around...everywhere.
No place to run.....0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rockatansky
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Good read. All of this is food for thought. But there are some 'rights' which are more important than others. ie. the 2nd Amendment is the 'enforcement clause' of the Constitution, thus all other rights are DEPENDENT on the RTKABA's.
But even this 'right' requires some 'management' of those whom exercise it, much to the dislike of the 'idealists'!
good illustration why i shall never post here again...
I am sorry to hear you do not believe the 2nd Amendment is the most important part of the Bill of Rights. Which one do you consider the most important???0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Rockatansky
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Good read. All of this is food for thought. But there are some 'rights' which are more important than others. ie. the 2nd Amendment is the 'enforcement clause' of the Constitution, thus all other rights are DEPENDENT on the RTKABA's.
But even this 'right' requires some 'management' of those whom exercise it, much to the dislike of the 'idealists'!
good illustration why i shall never post here again...
I am sorry to hear you do not believe the 2nd Amendment is the most important part of the Bill of Rights. Which one do you consider the most important???
As Rock has stated he will no longer post, I'll take this one.
You know quite well what he meant, Jim.
It should be obvious that having Government 'managing' a right is a compromised arrangement whereby the right no longer truly exists.0 -
Stalin had his own "useful idiots". The progressive movement has it's own "useful idiots" too.
There are those who will follow tyrants to the bloody end. Even promoting the cause of said tyrants along the way.
It is too bad those "idiots" can't see the forest for the trees. They have not a clue what LIBERTY really is.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Rockatansky
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Good read. All of this is food for thought. But there are some 'rights' which are more important than others. ie. the 2nd Amendment is the 'enforcement clause' of the Constitution, thus all other rights are DEPENDENT on the RTKABA's.
But even this 'right' requires some 'management' of those whom exercise it, much to the dislike of the 'idealists'!
good illustration why i shall never post here again...
I am sorry to hear you do not believe the 2nd Amendment is the most important part of the Bill of Rights. Which one do you consider the most important???
As Rock has stated he will no longer post, I'll take this one.
You know quite well what he meant, Jim.
It should be obvious that having Government 'managing' a right is a compromised arrangement whereby the right no longer truly exists.
So you do not think 'management' is right in the area of individual rights? Then we should all be able to 'vote early and often' (as acorn does), the cops should not be able to apply for and and get search and arrest warrants, and it is ok for people to make threats of violence to other people, just to name a few times when 'management of rights' are a part of the real world.
In other words you want anarchy to prevail!!!0 -
quote:So you do not think 'management' is right in the area of individual rights? Then we should all be able to 'vote early and often' (as acorn does), the cops should not be able to apply for and and get search and arrest warrants, and it is ok for people to make threats of violence to other people, just to name a few times when 'management of rights' are a part of the real world.
In other words you want anarchy to prevail!!!
Here we go again, Jim.[:)]
You examples are flawed.
First, Congress is authorized to pass laws related to regulating voting
Amendment XV
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Amendment XXIV
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Amendment XXVI
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Jim, it looks as if the Constitution specifically authorizes Congress to interfere in this area.
On to your Amendment IV analogy (flawed analogy)...
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Oops, I see there are provisions enumerated here also, which establish the ground-rules for getting a warrant.
Last, the act of speech itself should not be sanctioned, barring some tangible action, or some accompanying display of intent to commit a bad-act.
It is perfectly clear to see which individual liberties are considered inviolate and which liberties are constitutionally authorized to be regulated, or breached under specific enumerated circumstances, as part of an orderly society.
It is all spelled out, quite simply.
Don't you think, Jim?0 -
Jeff,
My arguments will always be flawed to an idealist. By the way there is nothing you posted that would restrict any one from voting 'early and often' only regulations which would restrict the government from denying the vote.
I will concede the 'warrant' issue, but still a true 'idealist' would not agree with this provision of 'management' of the right to be secure in your person and property.
Point being, the real world requires 'management' of people, which require the setting of boundaries. Do you believe it is with in individuals 2nd Amendment Right to be armed while intoxicated? It is with the Right to be armed while incarcerated? Is it within the Right for a five year old to take a firearm to school?
Just curious!![?]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Do you believe it is with in individuals 2nd Amendment Right to be armed while intoxicated? Absolutely!!
It is with the Right to be armed while incarcerated?Rights are suspended upon incarceration. All but basic right to life. You know this. Straw man anyone?
Is it within the Right for a five year old to take a firearm to school? Depends on the 5 year old. This is up to mom and dad, not fud.
Just curious!![?]
You truly fear your fellow citizen.
Fear fud, He's the one to worry about.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
As Rock has stated he will no longer post, I'll take this one.
You know quite well what he meant, Jim.
It should be obvious that having Government 'managing' a right is a compromised arrangement whereby the right no longer truly exists.
So you do not think 'management' is right in the area of individual rights? Then we should all be able to 'vote early and often' (as acorn does), the cops should not be able to apply for and and get search and arrest warrants, and it is ok for people to make threats of violence to other people, just to name a few times when 'management of rights' are a part of the real world.
In other words you want anarchy to prevail!!!
A supposed supporter of the 2nd Amendment, a restraint on government, sees fit to compare simple firearm ownership and possession with illegality. Fascinating.
The right to vote is 'managed' to ensure 1 man 1 vote. If a citizen wishes to vote, governments are mandated to ensure that they be allowed to do so. Those that attempt to exceed this limit of 1 vote are prosecuted because they have exceeded that which is their right.
'Managing' the RTKBA, at least by supporters of the 2nd Amendment, should be viewed in exactly the same manner. The Constitution states that there shall be no infringement upon a person's right to keep and bear arms. The Federal Government is thus mandated to not only not infringe itself; it must also ensure that State and Local Governments do not infringe. There is no 1 man 1 gun limit to manage, there is no type of arms description to manage, there is only the mandate to uphold this freedom. Following the Constitution is not anarchy.
Unwarranted search and seizure violates the Constitution. Warranted search and seizure is supported by the Constitution. Following the Constitution is not anarchy.
Comparison to the First Amendment is equally fallacious. The right to speak freely is only 'managed' when it damages, or can be reasonably expected to damage, another person. There is no preemptive 'management', and thus there is no honest comparison with the preemptive 'management' of people wrt the RTKBA.
How can one possibly even think that following a written charter approaches 'anarchy'? I suppose when one looks to government for too much, one can become conditioned to believe that no specific regulation is by definition anarchy.
I would submit that a Government operating outside its proscribed boundaries, ignoring its charter and implementing laws and restrictions at the whim of the majority is also by definition anarchy.0 -
[B)]Blam! 0 -
WOW! Jim is blind and stubborn. Jeff has the patience of a Saint!
Got it the first time Jeff, but, enjoyed your detailed explanation unlike the "slow learner". Well worth the time spemnt.
Be ever vigilant; one knows not the hour.....0 -
quote:Originally posted by cccooper
WOW! Jim is blind and stubborn. Jeff has the patience of a Saint!
Got it the first time Jeff, but, enjoyed your detailed explanation unlike the "slow learner". Well worth the time spemnt.
Be ever vigilant; one knows not the hour.....
[:)]Thank you Sir.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
I am sorry to hear you do not believe the 2nd Amendment is the most important part of the Bill of Rights. Which one do you consider the most important???
It's rather meaningless to consider each amendment in BOR separately, I think BOR only makes sense as a whole.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
As Rock has stated he will no longer post, I'll take this one.
yeah... about that... disregard that please, i think i might have been drunk or posting in my sleep or both, last couple of days were somewhat hazy.[:D]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rockatansky
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
As Rock has stated he will no longer post, I'll take this one.
yeah... about that... disregard that please, i think i might have been drunk or posting in my sleep or both, last couple of days were somewhat hazy.[:D]
[:)][;)]You would have been missed, Max.0 -
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Do you believe it is with in individuals 2nd Amendment Right to be armed while intoxicated? Absolutely!!
It is with the Right to be armed while incarcerated?Rights are suspended upon incarceration. All but basic right to life. You know this. Straw man anyone?
Is it within the Right for a five year old to take a firearm to school? Depends on the 5 year old. This is up to mom and dad, not fud.
Just curious!![?]
You truly fear your fellow citizen.
Fear fud, He's the one to worry about.
You have TOTALY LOST TOUCH WITH REALITY!!!
But I thank you for giving a straight froward answer, and I respect your opinion, even though it will never happen. Unlike some here You can address the subject matter and not attack those with whom you do not agree. Most hear have no real answer to the above questions so they just attack the one who asks.
Have a nice day. And thanks for your honest response!!!
Buy the way, I do not fear my fellow citizens, but I am aware that in the real world 'do-do occurs'!0 -
Jim Rau, you are wasting your time trying to talk sense over here. Many of these guys are like little children who have discovered they have certain rights and demand those rights to a crazy extreme. Such as a 5 year old taking a gun to school and selling guns out of vending machines. One would think that them just admitting their views are so extreme would set off the nut case detector and would wake them up.
But I have tried to for years without success.0 -
Do you realize that the reason children make good vitims today is because the are small and defenseless fox?
Up until about 80 years ago every kid over the age of 10 had a pistol in his pocket, hell they could get them for a nickle or send or hand in a cupon and get one for free with the purchase of goods.. Thats the way it was... And we today look back on those times as more clean and better days of goodness..
Do you realize at that same time cocain and opium could be bought through any catalog or at any sundry store.. Drugs where cheap and widely distributed, there was no drug gangs, there was no legion of jones fueled junkies...
You really dont understand much do you? You dont have any concept whatsoever of how things where before Wilson and the roosevelts..
feedom wasnt an ideal then, it was fact and everyone knew what it was... If you call what we live with today feedom and progress your life is far to sheltered, and it can only be sheltered because you are willfully blind. Folks today dont have the foggiest Idea, how could they? for the most part the last generation that enjoyed freedom is long dead..0 -
I think many here have lost touch with the basic reason for these discussions.
WE THE PEOPLE, is how this all starts!!
That is ALL of us, not just a few vocal people on both ends of the discussion/argument.
I know many here take offence to being called 'extremists', but that is the term for those 'idealist' who are on one end or other of this argument. You can't call Oboma an extremists if you don't call those on the other end extremists!!![?]
Mr. Wolf, you made a comment about the 'shot heard around the world' as a perfect/pure/ideal environment. Do you realize that when this country was founded black slaves had NO rights, certainly no right to be armed. Women could not vote. And the word 'militia' appeared in the 2nd Amendment, and at this 'ideal' time it referred ONLY to 'able bodied, men, between a certain age'????
I believe the founders were wise beyond their time and had alot of common sense, and if they were here today they would not say the intent of the 2nd was so any one who could afford it could have a thermal nuclear weapon in their home. They would agree there is one 'absolute' right, that is the right of self defense. Regardless of the organism size it has the right to defend it's self if attacked, we humans are the only organism which rely on technology to defend ourselves, thus the need for the 2nd. It is how ever not with it's problems. These MUST be addressed and not ignored, as many of you are doing!0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
I know many here take offence to being called 'extremists', but that is the term for those 'idealist' who are on one end or other of this argument. You can't call Oboma an extremists if you don't call those on the other end extremists!!![?]
Steadfast support of our founding document is an extreme position?
A thinking man would contemplate whether it is more extreme to advocate adhering to the rule of law or, is it more extreme to concede rights specifically delineated in that law.
It is not our fault, Jim, that you have bought into the left / right myth concocted by the mainstream parties. The country has moved ever closer to socialism and the nanny state every decade since the 1930s. Those that support the pure and ideal 2nd Amendment are the moderates. It is the law, after-all.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Mr. Wolf, you made a comment about the 'shot heard around the world' as a perfect/pure/ideal environment. Do you realize that when this country was founded black slaves had NO rights, certainly no right to be armed. Women could not vote. And the word 'militia' appeared in the 2nd Amendment, and at this 'ideal' time it referred ONLY to 'able bodied, men, between a certain age'????
The word 'militia' has no bearing on the operative clause of the 2nd Amendment. It is not only a freedom thing, it is a language thing.
From paragraph 1(a) in the Heller decision:
'The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.'
Can we finally put this silly 'militia' discussion to bed?
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
I believe the founders were wise beyond their time and had alot of common sense, and if they were here today they would not say the intent of the 2nd was so any one who could afford it could have a thermal nuclear weapon in their home. They would agree there is one 'absolute' right, that is the right of self defense. Regardless of the organism size it has the right to defend it's self if attacked, we humans are the only organism which rely on technology to defend ourselves, thus the need for the 2nd. It is how ever not with it's problems. These MUST be addressed and not ignored, as many of you are doing!
The founders may well have thought that the right to self-defense was absolute. They probably also thought it obvious, which is, I would guess, one of the reasons it is not mentioned in the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment, of course, has nothing to do with self defense, though Gun Controllers love to think that it is about self-defense, hunting, and the shooting sports. Again, the prefatory clause states the purpose, that being 'The Security of a free State', thus ensuring that the population has access to the means to resist a tyrannical government and its agents.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Mr. Wolf, you made a comment about the 'shot heard around the world' as a perfect/pure/ideal environment. Do you realize that when this country was founded black slaves had NO rights, certainly no right to be armed. Women could not vote. And the word 'militia' appeared in the 2nd Amendment, and at this 'ideal' time it referred ONLY to 'able bodied, men, between a certain age'????
The word 'militia' has no bearing on the operative clause of the 2nd Amendment. It is not only a freedom thing, it is a language thing.
From paragraph 1(a) in the Heller decision:
'The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.'
Can we finally put this silly 'militia' discussion to bed?
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
I believe the founders were wise beyond their time and had alot of common sense, and if they were here today they would not say the intent of the 2nd was so any one who could afford it could have a thermal nuclear weapon in their home. They would agree there is one 'absolute' right, that is the right of self defense. Regardless of the organism size it has the right to defend it's self if attacked, we humans are the only organism which rely on technology to defend ourselves, thus the need for the 2nd. It is how ever not with it's problems. These MUST be addressed and not ignored, as many of you are doing!
The founders may well have thought that the right to self-defense was absolute. They probably also thought it obvious, which is, I would guess, one of the reasons it is not mentioned in the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment, of course, has nothing to do with self defense, though Gun Controllers love to think that it is about self-defense, hunting, and the shooting sports. Again, the prefatory clause states the purpose, that being 'The Security of a free State', thus ensuring that the population has access to the means to resist a tyrannical government and its agents.
Thanks Don, well said.
Jim, in your opinion what are the problems with the 2nd amendment that need managed?0 -
First off, the 'management ' is of people, not objects. But , yes, all RIGHTS must be managed to prevent the government and individuals from abusing them, thus 'laws' are need. As the old bumper sticker says, "People kill people, guns do not"!!
Secondly, Don, once again you ass/u/me something about me and you are wrong again. There are only two categories of people in my world, traditionalist, and progressives. These two may vary in degree, but this where the 'fight' is. I am a realistic traditionalist, as apposed to a idealist traditionalist, which you appear to be. [;)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Mr. Wolf, you made a comment about the 'shot heard around the world' as a perfect/pure/ideal environment. Do you realize that when this country was founded black slaves had NO rights, certainly no right to be armed. Women could not vote. And the word 'militia' appeared in the 2nd Amendment, and at this 'ideal' time it referred ONLY to 'able bodied, men, between a certain age'????
The word 'militia' has no bearing on the operative clause of the 2nd Amendment. It is not only a freedom thing, it is a language thing.
From paragraph 1(a) in the Heller decision:
'The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.'
Can we finally put this silly 'militia' discussion to bed?
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
I believe the founders were wise beyond their time and had alot of common sense, and if they were here today they would not say the intent of the 2nd was so any one who could afford it could have a thermal nuclear weapon in their home. They would agree there is one 'absolute' right, that is the right of self defense. Regardless of the organism size it has the right to defend it's self if attacked, we humans are the only organism which rely on technology to defend ourselves, thus the need for the 2nd. It is how ever not with it's problems. These MUST be addressed and not ignored, as many of you are doing!
The founders may well have thought that the right to self-defense was absolute. They probably also thought it obvious, which is, I would guess, one of the reasons it is not mentioned in the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment, of course, has nothing to do with self defense, though Gun Controllers love to think that it is about self-defense, hunting, and the shooting sports. Again, the prefatory clause states the purpose, that being 'The Security of a free State', thus ensuring that the population has access to the means to resist a tyrannical government and its agents.
Thanks Don, well said.
Jim, in your opinion what are the problems with the 2nd amendment that need managed?
Don,
Go up to the NBC thread and I think you will see the answer to this question, basically, not in detail.
Thanks for asking!0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
110 comments