Other State Gun Rights -vs- Private Property Rights

[RX-79G]

It is, because if something is a right, a ban can't exist. If it is not a right, then it can be banned.

Then you have no rights, because all of them have restrictions that ban their expression at certain times. The absolute right does not and has never existed.

 

[American123]

Then you have no rights, because all of them have restrictions that ban their expression at certain times. The absolute right does not and has never existed.

The founders said we have certain inalienable rights, of which include the right to: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

They even went so far as to write a list later called "the bill of rights." - so it seems like maybe the intention of the founders, and your interpretation are a bit different.

 

[RX-79G]

The founders said we have certain inalienable rights, of which include the right to: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

They even went so far as to write a list later called "the bill of rights." - so it seems like maybe the intention of the founders, and your interpretation are a bit different.

And the Founders had the death penalty, jail and all sorts of laws curtailing the right to pursue indulgent behavior.

So either they all had some severe cognitive dissonance, or what the NRA has been marketing to you since the late '70s about what "inalienable" means is baloney.


My money is on brilliant minds like Franklin, Madison and Jefferson knowing what they were saying.

 

[CamoDeafie]

The only real baloney I am seeing so far is the cognitive dissonance between limiting Government interference and "obeying the Government decrees"

Now tell me. where in the Bill of Rights does it say that Government can make laws that regulates the Rights? Bueller? Anyone? *crickets* please note. each and every one of the ennumerated Rights states unequivocally that Congress shall make no laws... that violates the Rights stated, and that any Rights not stated are the domain of the States or the People.

Nothing in the BOR says "Congress may regulate, restrict, and limit such Rights"

 

[RX-79G]

The only real baloney I am seeing so far is the cognitive dissonance between limiting Government interference and "obeying the Government decrees"

Now tell me. where in the Bill of Rights does it say that Government can make laws that regulates the Rights? Bueller? Anyone? *crickets* please note. each and every one of the ennumerated Rights states unequivocally that Congress shall make no laws... that violates the Rights stated, and that any Rights not stated are the domain of the States or the People.

Nothing in the BOR says "Congress may regulate, restrict, and limit such Rights"

Which probably reflects the difference between the definition of "violate" and "regulate".

No Supreme Court has ever considered treating any right as absolute in the sense that you're suggesting, nor has any plaintiff. No one in the legal system believes what you believe, not matter how popular that recent belief has gotten.

 

[American123]

And the Founders had the death penalty, jail and all sorts of laws curtailing the right to pursue indulgent behavior.

So either they all had some severe cognitive dissonance, or what the NRA has been marketing to you since the late '70s about what "inalienable" means is baloney.


My money is on brilliant minds like Franklin, Madison and Jefferson knowing what they were saying.

You don't have a right to physically harm, steal from, or otherwise violate others. So I am perplexed how you are trying to use a jail as evidence that rights don't exist.

If we start to get into the topic of morals with respect to the law, then we have to start to incorporate religion (the Ten Commandments)

Edit: they even reference our rights come from our creator (reference to God) so then we would have to examine things through that lens as well.

Edit: getting back to verbage in the constitution. It doesn't explain 1 iota of ability for the government to regulate arms. It specifically says they are necessary to remain free and therefore shall not be infringed upon (summarized)

 

[CamoDeafie]

Which probably reflects the difference between the definition of "violate" and "regulate".

No Supreme Court has ever considered treating any right as absolute in the sense that you're suggesting, nor has any plaintiff. No one in the legal system believes what you believe, not matter how popular that recent belief has gotten.

Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness are the 3 Absolute (or near enough) Rights I can think of... despite what you're asserting.

There's also those "Human Rights" that the world, particularly UN and a few other groups consider to be Absolute... otherwise we wouldn't have "Crimes against humanity" or "human rights abuses" or the like.

 

[RX-79G]

You don't have a right to physically harm, steal from, or otherwise violate others. So I am perplexed how you are trying to use a jail as evidence that rights don't exist.

If we start to get into the topic of morals with respect to the law, then we have to start to incorporate religion (the Ten Commandments)

Edit: they even reference our rights come from our creator (reference to God) so then we would have to examine things through that lens as well.

It doesn't matter what you don't have the right to do. If you want to pretend that a right cannot be violated by government, then there is no law that could be passed to violate that right.
The jail penalty for theft is a law that abridges liberty.
The death penalty for murder is a law that abridges life.
Perjury is a law that abridges free speech.

None of which are about morals, but just the fact that we have always have laws that are in literal conflict with the strict language of the BoR.

Which does not mean that we don't have rights, just that we don't have the kind of total rights you're saying we do. That's what I meant by "no rights". We have broad rights in principle, regulated by necessary exceptions. You are personally in favor of those exceptions, or you would not abide taking away liberty as a consequence of any circumstance. If you believed in absolute liberty, you would say that federally created laws that take it away are always in violation of the Constitution.

The difference is that you favor these exceptions sometimes, but abhor them the rest of the time. We take people's guns when they are arrested and "innocent until proven guilty". The rationale is that it would not be safe for jailers otherwise. But how can you have a law limiting a right when a person hasn't even been convicted?

The answer is that the rights are subject to necessary restrictions.

 

[RX-79G]

Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness are the 3 Absolute (or near enough) Rights I can think of... despite what you're asserting.

There's also those "Human Rights" that the world, particularly UN and a few other groups consider to be Absolute... otherwise we wouldn't have "Crimes against humanity" or "human rights abuses" or the like.

And they ALL have exceptions that all of us accept. The absolutists are just cherrypicking which rights they want to have treated with literal absoluteness.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Starting with the first one, "life" if I have an "inalienable right" to my life and no human laws can restrain or repeal that right, if I need food to exerciser my right to stay alive why can't I just take whatever food I need to exercise that right?

 

[American123]

Starting with the first one, "life" if I have an "inalienable right" to my life and no human laws can restrain or repeal that right, if I need food to exerciser my right to stay alive why can't I just take whatever food I need to exercise that right?

Try reading one of the ten commandments, that's where a lot of laws stemmed from.

 

[American123]

It doesn't matter what you don't have the right to do. If you want to pretend that a right cannot be violated by government, then there is no law that could be passed to violate that right.
The jail penalty for theft is a law that abridges liberty.
The death penalty for murder is a law that abridges life.
Perjury is a law that abridges free speech.

None of which are about morals, but just the fact that we have always have laws that are in literal conflict with the strict language of the BoR.

Which does not mean that we don't have rights, just that we don't have the kind of total rights you're saying we do. That's what I meant by "no rights". We have broad rights in principle, regulated by necessary exceptions. You are personally in favor of those exceptions, or you would not abide taking away liberty as a consequence of any circumstance. If you believed in absolute liberty, you would say that federally created laws that take it away are always in violation of the Constitution.

The difference is that you favor these exceptions sometimes, but abhor them the rest of the time. We take people's guns when they are arrested and "innocent until proven guilty". The rationale is that it would not be safe for jailers otherwise. But how can you have a law limiting a right when a person hasn't even been convicted?

The answer is that the rights are subject to necessary restrictions.

You're making the argument that a government can't jail people because that would violate their rights as I have previously stated. That's a straw-man. People who violate the rights of others, especially in a violent way, have forfeited their liberty. It is not the government taking their liberty, it is them as an individual with inalienable rights giving it up, because they had the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness until they forfeited it when they chose to violate those inalienable rights of others.

 

[RX-79G]

Try reading one of the ten commandments, that's where a lot of laws stemmed from.

The Ten Commandments don't have sentencing guidelines. I don't know how they pertain to loss of rights.

 

[RX-79G]

People who violate the rights of others, especially in a violent way, have forfeited their liberty.

Where does the Constitution say that?

I'm not being cheeky - this is literally an unwritten assumption unsupported by the actual laws. And you can't have an exception to an absolute right that isn't even articulated.

Please do quote this legal principle.

 

[American123]

Where does the Constitution say that?

I'm not being cheeky - this is literally an unwritten assumption unsupported by the actual laws. And you can't have an exception to an absolute right that isn't even articulated.

Please do quote this legal principle.

Great question, and you're right. It doesn't, but then again the entire penal system, or really any significant part of the penal system isn't spelled out in the constitution either. The constitution was written as a restraint to the government, what they were allowed to do and how that system of government would work with the separation of powers. The American penal system comes primarily from English common law, or the practices of "justice" as they were interpreted there. That is also where we get the concept that anything that is not expressly against the law is therefore legal. So when we are talking about the penal system brushing against inalienable rights it should be examined within the context of the society in which both existed at the time when this was all being written. Obviously the penal system existed before the constitution, so you have to consider those who wrote the constitution and bill of rights did so with the laws they were already living with as acceptable within the confines of the constitution and bill of rights.

 

[RX-79G]

Great question, and you're right. It doesn't, but then again the entire penal system, or really any significant part of the penal system isn't spelled out in the constitution either. The constitution was written as a restraint to the government, what they were allowed to do and how that system of government would work with t of powers. The American penal system comes primarily from English common law, or the practices of "justice" as they were interpreted there. That is also where we get the concept that anything that is not expressly against the law is therefore legal. So when we are talking about the penal system brushing against inalienable rights it should be examined within the context of the society in which both existed at the time when this was all being written. Obviously the penal system existed before the constitution, so you have to consider those who wrote the constitution and bill of rights did so with the laws they were already living with as acceptable within the confines of the constitution and bill of rights.

The penal system is spelled out in law. Those laws are subject to and at the behest of the Constitution. Just as there isn't any language in law articulating the basis of "loss of rights", there also is no language grandfathering prior law as exceptions to the Constitution.

There is no justification offered anywhere for removing, limiting or defining any right anywhere in any legal document. Not for the ones you support, not the for the ones you reject. Therefore, all limitations on articulated rights are all either equally unconstitutional, or all equally subject to "reasonable" regulation.

You pick.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Try reading one of the ten commandments, that's where a lot of laws stemmed from.

Where does the Constitution say anything about the 10 Commandments and why would you reply with that instead of actually attempting to answer my question?

 

[American123]

Where does the Constitution say anything about the 10 Commandments and why would you reply with that instead of actually attempting to answer my question?

You asked where some laws come from. Some laws go back to biblical times, those are some of them.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

You asked where some laws come from. Some laws go back to biblical times, those are some of them.

Literally nothing in my post asked on any way, shape or form where laws come from

 

[American123]

The penal system is spelled out in law. Those laws are subject to and at the behest of the Constitution. Just as there isn't any language in law articulating the basis of "loss of rights", there also is no language grandfathering prior law as exceptions to the Constitution.

There is no justification offered anywhere for removing, limiting or defining any right anywhere in any legal document. Not for the ones you support, not the for the ones you reject. Therefore, all limitations on articulated rights are all either equally unconstitutional, or all equally subject to "reasonable" regulation.

You pick.

You're trying to paint this as an either or. You either have complete and total freedom to do whatever you want (inalienable rights) or you are subject to limitations of those rights and they can be regulated as much as is "reasonable" (entirely subjective).

You're trying to paint it as "rape and murder is totally cool if it is in pursuit of happiness" the founders wrote the constitution, and the bill of rights, and also simultaneously lived in a society where certain actions were not allowed because, why? Because they were merely rules to be followed? or was there a deeper emphasis on what was right and what was wrong and why some behaviors were completely acceptable and some were not?

That difference there is why you're tunneling toward a "pick one" outcome is incorrect.