Beta O’Rourke Questions If “Any” Constitutional-Protected Right Is “Absolute”

[Weatherman2020]

Who said the Left have gone full Soviet?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Which constitutionally protected right is absolute without one single restriction?

 

[rightwinger]

The right to bear arms is not absolute

 

[johngaltshrugged]

I'm surprised some Texan hasn't stomped Beta into a puddle of pussy juice yet.

God given natural rights don't need anyone's approval & are inalienable despite the best efforts of the left.

"Shall not be infringed" means exactly what it says

 

[martybegan]

The right to bear arms is not absolute

But it is a right, and thus can only be limited using the least invasive methods possible, only when there is a compelling state interest, and only when the right is still maintained.

"may issue" concealed carry permits don't meet that requirement, neither does banning all semi-automatic weapons.


banning felons and the mentally adjudicated does meet those requirements.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Which constitutionally protected right is absolute without one single restriction?

Only restricted when a right begins to suppress the rights of others.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Only restricted when a right begins to suppress the rights of others.

Thus it is not absolute, correct?

 

[LeftofLeft]

The right to bear arms is not absolute

Yes, you people clearly feel that way. Then again, you also voted for and side with the “fundamental transformation of this Nation” mindset.

How American.

 

[22lcidw]

The right to bear arms is not absolute

Until the globalists finally got the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, freedom was absolute. Which may have seemed less so than what we see in many respects today. The false currency peaked by 1970. Our freedoms of unalienable rights with it. It has been a slow decline since than with burps of increases.

 

[ColonelAngus]

The left claims they have the right to terminate your employment if you do not get an experimental gene therapy shot.

 

[Darkwind]

Limiting a right must meet a very high standard of proven wrongdoing by the individual. Note, I said individual.

A right's removal or its' limit is restricted to a conviction through 'Due Process. In other words, the government has ZERO authority to remove or limit a right. Only a jury of our 'peers' has that power. Every and any other way is pure corruption.

The government has no proper authority to limit or remove a natural right of a group of people or the population as a whole.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Limiting a right must meet a very high standard of proven wrongdoing by the individual. Note, I said individual.

A right's removal or its' limit is restricted to a conviction through 'Due Process. In other words, the government has ZERO authority to remove or limit a right. Only a jury of our 'peers' has that power. Every and any other way is pure corruption.

The government has no proper authority to limit or remove a natural right of a group of people or the population as a whole.

Our government seems to love to remove life from brown people overseas.

How many have Biden and Obama murdered, at least a millon?

 

[JWBooth]

 

[JGalt]

Beto has the absolute right to shut his fucking pie hole and hold his breath until he turns blue and passes out.

I hope one of those big bad Texans stomps his faggot ass to the curb.

 

[Votto]

Which constitutionally protected right is absolute without one single restriction?

The right to tax and spend in government

Oh, and death.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The right to tax and spend in government

Oh, and death.

Seems if the power to tax were absolute we would not have one of the lowest tax rates in the world.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Thus it is not absolute, correct?

If only that were the real intent of the gun grabbers, but you FUCKING KNOW it is not, so why are you defending this shit?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

If only that were the real intent of the gun grabbers, but you FUCKING KNOW it is not, so why are you defending this shit?

I merely pointed out that we all pretty much agree that no right is absolute, so there really is no good reason to freak out when someone says it out loud.

 

[JGalt]

I merely pointed out that we all pretty much agree that no right is absolute, so there really is no good reason to freak out when someone says it out loud.

There is good reason. You can make the statement that "no rights are absolute", and it would be nothing more than an opinion.

But when individuals who are seeking the power of high offices in the government makes a statement like that, the hair on the back of your neck should be standing up and red warning lights should be flashing in your brain.

Individuals with an opinion have no power to deprive you of your rights. But a government ran by individuals with that same opinion, can do anything they want to you. They can operate with impunity, because they have the full force of the government.

Beto's statement should be particularly concerning, in light of the fact that everyone knows what his positions are. He has publicly made those positions clear, including the fact that he is an advocate of door-to-door firearms confiscation.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I merely pointed out that we all pretty much agree that no right is absolute, so there really is no good reason to freak out when someone says it out loud.

But you know good and goddamn well what the real intent here is.

No right as absolute = we can take all your guns

You are selling the gun grabbing line.

So while no right is absolute, all federal gun laws are unconstitutional. "Shall not be infringed" means shall not be infringed.

The funny part about all of this is that originally, the states could decide what to do about regulating firearms or other arms, but now that we have that clumsy piece of shit 14th amendment, no government has the authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

The Supreme Court has been so fucking chickenshit dancing around that issue when they know what they should do.