Right to Arms in the 21st Century

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
424

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

Reread what I wrote. I did not say they cease to exist. [/quote]

Youā€™re just playing semantics now. If natural rights are justifiably superseded by another form of law, they donā€™t exist in the sense that they donā€™t control and no longer have to be honored.

So, the point remains - if the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right, which by its nature cannot be superseded by another law, then no law supersedes the right, period.

[/quote]

You should just jump on my bandwagon. Or is it me who sits on yours?[/quote]

Iā€™ll just hitch on to yours.

425

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Natural Rights are simply the rights that people have by virtue of their nature. They literally encompass any and all actions one is capable of. That would include the ability to violate the rights of others. In manā€™s Natural State, I most certainly have the right (meaning I was given the ability) to violate the rights of others.

[/quote]

This, however, is where you falter. Rights are not merely the ability to do something.
[/quote]
Unless you gave your body and your free will to yourself, it was given to you by a higher power. That higher power is the source of all that you have by nature. ALL expressions of free will fall into that category.

426

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

Reread what I wrote. I did not say they cease to exist. [/quote]

Youā€™re just playing semantics now. If natural rights are justifiably superseded by another form of law, they donā€™t exist in the sense that they donā€™t control and no longer have to be honored.

So, the point remains - if the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right, which by its nature cannot be superseded by another law, then no law supersedes the right, period.

[/quote]

You should just jump on my bandwagon. Or is it me who sits on yours?[/quote]

Iā€™ll just hitch on to yours.
[/quote]
Ass, grass, gas. No one rides for free.

427

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote

They are not justifiably superseded by another form of law. This is why laws or restrictions in opposition to natural rights are unjust. We as a society, with government as an instrument, deny free exercise of natural rights after an individual has violated the rights of another.

Does a former felon have the right to self defense? Yes. Do we attempt to suppress the rights of felons? Yes. This is all post due process, opposed to infringing on the rights of people for exercising natural rights.
[/quote]

Ok, itā€™s unjust to enact and enforce laws in opposition to natural rights. So, statute prohibiting a felon - any felon - from owning an arm is unjust, because said felon has a natural right to an arm, correct?

Has to be the case on that theory.

And no, the ā€œpost due processā€ exception - whatever the Hell that actually means exactly - is not an exception. Every law that is passed (that is constitutional) is the product of due process, not just laws passed penalizing criminals. So, a law that says you canā€™t own a machine gun without ever having violated anyone elseā€™s rights is just as much a product of due process as a law that you says a felon canā€™t own a machine gun. From a due process perspective, there is no difference.

So, the libertarian canard that ā€œyou have a natural, inviolable right to own any arm you want! Oh, except for felons - itā€™s ok if we pass laws restricting their right to own armsā€ is illogical and there isnā€™t a rational basis for it. Natural rights are either inviolable, or they arenā€™t.

430

philosopher
as defined by the great man MEL BROOKS
philosopher; bullshitter
when you cannot win an argument by logic reason or fact baffle them with bullshit

431

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new govenment, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness

bunch smart guys wrote this

now read 1st and second amendments
if you read first paragraph mainly this part 'whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it

the 1st and second give you the people the ability to do this
then look at the new jersey militia at this time period
notice word militia
they were told to show up with rifle or musket
they would be issued powder and shot for their weapons it did not say they would be issued weapons
points directly to private ownership of weapons by militia
their weapons would be as good or better than the weapons of the army they would face
oh but they did not say machine guns,
dummies they were not invented at this time
common sense warning;
if the british troops had machine guns do you think militia would have been told to bring flintlocks?
if the founding fathers wrote whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it
do you think they would give said government the ablitiy to alter the intent of the 1st and second
end of rant

435

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Natural rights are either inviolable, or they arenā€™t.
[/quote]

Nope. Natural rights include life, liberty and property.

If you commit a capital crime you lose your right to life in many states; you will be executed.

If you commit certain felonies and are incarcerated you lose your right to liberty like speech and religion and to peaceably assemble and to be secure in your persons against unreasonable searches and seizures, etc.

But these losses follow due process for violations of duly passed laws.

The loss of the liberty of an 11 round magazine for your pistol or rifle is a different animal.[/quote]

But you can lose liberty and property under due process of law without the condition of having violated theblarger or someone elseā€™s rights first, and that has always been the case. Easiest example? Published takings and eminent domain. The government can take your property without you having done anything wrong to anyone (so long as it does so in conformance with due process, in this case just compensation).

This is precisely my point to Miami. You both are adding an artificial ingredient as to what amounts to due process. The component that you violate a law first required to restrict your liberty or take your property.

So, a law restricting a non-felonā€™s right to an arm is the same as restricting a felonā€™s right to an arm so long as due process was followed. Thereā€™s no logical basis for saying violating the right of one is ok but not for the other based on ā€œdue process.ā€ All that demonstrates is that you are clueless as to what due process means and has meant since the birth of the Republic.

438

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Natural rights are either inviolable, or they arenā€™t.
[/quote]

Nope. Natural rights include life, liberty and property.

If you commit a capital crime you lose your right to life in many states; you will be executed.

If you commit certain felonies and are incarcerated you lose your right to liberty like speech and religion and to peaceably assemble and to be secure in your persons against unreasonable searches and seizures, etc.

But these losses follow due process for violations of duly passed laws.

The loss of the liberty of an 11 round magazine for your pistol or rifle is a different animal.[/quote]

But you can lose liberty and property under due process of law without the condition of having violated theblarger or someone elseā€™s rights first, and that has always been the case. Easiest example? Published takings and eminent domain. The government can take your property without you having done anything wrong to anyone (so long as it does so in conformance with due process, in this case just compensation).

This is precisely my point to Miami. You both are adding an artificial ingredient as to what amounts to due process. The component that you violate a law first required to restrict your liberty or take your property.

So, a law restricting a non-felonā€™s right to an arm is the same as restricting a felonā€™s right to an arm so long as due process was followed. Thereā€™s no logical basis for saying violating the right of one is ok but not for the other based on ā€œdue process.ā€ All that demonstrates is that you are clueless as to what due process means and has meant since the birth of the Republic.
[/quote]

So now you are going to compare 11 round magazines with eminent domain, eh? Okie dokie.[/quote]

Nope, simply explaining how due process works to a clueless forum participant.