Do our rights come with a responsibility?

[Sallow]

Horseshit. Where does the Constitution say that a "governmental interest" can trump any right?

There are many examples.

Schenck v. United States (1919) is among the first and best known by Americans concerning restrictions on speech:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.... The question in every case is whether the words used ...create a clear and present danger.

Explain what clear and present danger allows New York to restrict magazines to 7 rounds? Or allows the Federal Government to demand registration of fire arms or even 100 percent back ground checks?

Are you serious?

Really?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Can the rights given us by our Constitution be abused and do we have a duty to enjoy our rights responsibly?

Do our rights come with a responsibility?

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

(Preamble)

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

do ordain and establish this Constitution


well, the Constitution does not specifically say just how the Constitution should be administered, just that it is ordained and established ... "in Order to", that must be where the rights may be abused and where Responsibility becomes inherent.

It says to secure the 'blessings' of Liberty, not the tragic consequences of unrestrained Liberty.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Clearly the NRA's flip flop to now oppose background checks proves that they don't believe that rights come with any responsibilities.

They also now don't believe that their role is to protect the gun rights of law abiding citizens only;

they have now added convicted criminals to their umbrella of protection.

 

[OriginalShroom]

There are many examples.

Schenck v. United States (1919) is among the first and best known by Americans concerning restrictions on speech:

That is not an example of "Governmental Interest". It is an example of how the exercise of a right can infringe upon the rights of others.

Yes, it is an example of a governmental interest.

The interest is preventing injury and possible death resulting from the panic. The person criminally prosecuted for starting the panic would not be able to claim a First Amendment defense.

It is an example of how, as a result of someone infringing on other people's rights, the Government set reasonable limits on that right.

Just as a panic can ensue from someone shouting "Fire" in a crowd, that limit was set. It is a reasonable limit. The person isn't forbidden from speaking or required to get a license to speak.. he is punished when he exceeds that set limit.

 

[The Rabbi]

There are many examples.

Schenck v. United States (1919) is among the first and best known by Americans concerning restrictions on speech:

Explain what clear and present danger allows New York to restrict magazines to 7 rounds? Or allows the Federal Government to demand registration of fire arms or even 100 percent back ground checks?

That’s an argument for advocates of such restrictions to make.

Reasonable restrictions with regard to the Second Amendment would include disallowing convicted felons from owning firearms and the prohibition of the possession of weapons deemed ‘dangerous and unusual,’ such as RPGs and sawed-off shotguns. See: DC v. Heller (2008).

There is no prohibition of owning RPGs and sawed off shotguns.

 

[The Rabbi]

Can the rights given us by our Constitution be abused and do we have a duty to enjoy our rights responsibly?

You'd have to give some kind of example to be coherent.

Is voting for someone because he promises free shit, even where that will bankrupt the country, an abuse of the right?
Do people have a moral (not legal) obligation to learn about the firearms they buy so they can use them responsibly and safely?
Is advocating an action contrary to the Constitution, like confiscating firearms or supporting a 3rd term for Obama, an abuse of the right of free speech?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Stephen King wrote and published a novel about a teenage boy who killed his teacher and held his classmates hostage. The Novel, "Rage", was cited as inspirationby perpertrators for a number of mass shootings in the 1980's and 1990's.

The shootings prompted King to withdraw the book from the market. He had every right to exercise his first amendment rights, but did the responsible thing.

What was that? What did he do?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Rabbi and CrusaderFrank have moved in; there goes the neighborhood.

Quote: Originally Posted by Wry Catcher
Can the rights given us by our Constitution be abused and do we have a duty to enjoy our rights responsibly?

Rabbi asks: "You'd have to give some kind of example to be coherent."

Does anyone else need an example, or only the concrete 'thinkers'?

I have the right of free speech and expression. Is my right infringed when I walk naked into a first grade class and masturbate and find myself in jail?

Is that concrete enough for you Rabbi?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Stephen King wrote and published a novel about a teenage boy who killed his teacher and held his classmates hostage. The Novel, "Rage", was cited as inspirationby perpertrators for a number of mass shootings in the 1980's and 1990's.

The shootings prompted King to withdraw the book from the market. He had every right to exercise his first amendment rights, but did the responsible thing.

What was that? What did he do?

He withdrew the book from the market.

Stephen King?s Essay ?Guns? Takes on Gun Policy, National Dialogue ? IVN Editors? Blog

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Stephen King wrote and published a novel about a teenage boy who killed his teacher and held his classmates hostage. The Novel, "Rage", was cited as inspirationby perpertrators for a number of mass shootings in the 1980's and 1990's.

The shootings prompted King to withdraw the book from the market. He had every right to exercise his first amendment rights, but did the responsible thing.

Which brings up an important aspect of our civil liberties and citizens’ responsibilities. There is no requirement that a citizen ‘justify’ the exercising of a Constitutional right, there is no prerequisite that the exercising of a right will somehow ‘benefit’ society in general, even when the exercising of that right seems inane or pointless to other citizens.

This obviously goes to the issue of gun control, where those who exercise their Second Amendment rights are often asked ‘why do you need an “assault weapon”’? As with the exercising of any other right, a citizen is not required to explain his ‘need’ to own a given firearm otherwise legal to posses in his jurisdiction. Citizens often say and do things in the context of their civil liberties that others find strange or even offensive, but that is not justification to curtail or preempt the exercising of that right.

That society may perceive a potential danger with regard to citizens owning a certain firearm does not justify banning that weapon, whether he ‘needs’ that weapon or not.

 

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi and CrusaderFrank have moved in; there goes the neighborhood.

Quote: Originally Posted by Wry Catcher
Can the rights given us by our Constitution be abused and do we have a duty to enjoy our rights responsibly?

Rabbi asks: "You'd have to give some kind of example to be coherent."

Does anyone else need an example, or only the concrete 'thinkers'?

I have the right of free speech and expression. Is my right infringed when I walk naked into a first grade class and masturbate and find myself in jail?

Is that concrete enough for you Rabbi?

No, that isn't an example of what you are talking about at all. Your example is one of criminal conduct, not duty.
It's fun watching you blurb out crap after crap, hapless in your misunderstanding of what you write.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That is not an example of "Governmental Interest". It is an example of how the exercise of a right can infringe upon the rights of others.

Yes, it is an example of a governmental interest.

The interest is preventing injury and possible death resulting from the panic. The person criminally prosecuted for starting the panic would not be able to claim a First Amendment defense.

It is an example of how, as a result of someone infringing on other people's rights, the Government set reasonable limits on that right.

Just as a panic can ensue from someone shouting "Fire" in a crowd, that limit was set. It is a reasonable limit. The person isn't forbidden from speaking or required to get a license to speak.. he is punished when he exceeds that set limit.

It has nothing to do with ‘other peoples’ rights.’

There is a First Amendment right to free speech.

If the government wishes to restrict or preempt some form of free speech it must have a compelling reason and be rationally based.

Wishing to prevent injury and death is rational on the part of the government, and a compelling, justified reason; consequently the government is authorized to pass a law punishing someone who yells fire in a theatre, as it is not ‘protected speech.’

 

[MisterBeale]

Can the rights given us by our Constitution be abused. . . []?

It's pretty much a moot point at this juncture, isn't it? That horse has left the barn. They can, and they are. The public doesn't seem to care, their representatives are in fact political elites who are shilling for the establishment. They are not in fact, of the people, for the people and by the people. They are passing laws for the corporatocracy to enslave the populace. Wake up and stop being so naive.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/averages.php

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Rabbi and CrusaderFrank have moved in; there goes the neighborhood.

Quote: Originally Posted by Wry Catcher
Can the rights given us by our Constitution be abused and do we have a duty to enjoy our rights responsibly?

Rabbi asks: "You'd have to give some kind of example to be coherent."

Does anyone else need an example, or only the concrete 'thinkers'?

I have the right of free speech and expression. Is my right infringed when I walk naked into a first grade class and masturbate and find myself in jail?

Is that concrete enough for you Rabbi?

I have the right of free speech and expression. Is my right infringed when I walk naked into a first grade class and masturbate and find myself in jail?

lol

Yes, that would be another good example of ‘free expression’ not entitled to First Amendment protection.

 

[MisterBeale]

If the government wishes to restrict or preempt some form of free speech it must have a compelling reason and be rationally based.

Wishing to prevent injury and death is rational on the part of the government, and a compelling, justified reason; consequently the government is authorized to pass a law punishing someone who yells fire in a theatre, as it is not ‘protected speech.’

Where has the federal government been authorized to restrict speech?

 

[DStar777]

Can the rights given us by our Constitution be abused and do we have a duty to enjoy our rights responsibly?

You are beginning with a false premise. A right is not something that is given to you by anyone. Rights are a recognized moral principle guiding ones action in relation to other men. The only responsibility rights impose on us is the obligation not to violate another man's rights. Our Constitution is a restraint on government power (as illustrated by the language "Congress shall make no law") and the law is supposed to be a restraint on any action that would violate rights (laws against murder, rape or theft for example).

 

[Wry Catcher]

Stephen King wrote and published a novel about a teenage boy who killed his teacher and held his classmates hostage. The Novel, "Rage", was cited as inspirationby perpertrators for a number of mass shootings in the 1980's and 1990's.

The shootings prompted King to withdraw the book from the market. He had every right to exercise his first amendment rights, but did the responsible thing.

Which brings up an important aspect of our civil liberties and citizens’ responsibilities. There is no requirement that a citizen ‘justify’ the exercising of a Constitutional right, there is no prerequisite that the exercising of a right will somehow ‘benefit’ society in general, even when the exercising of that right seems inane or pointless to other citizens.

This obviously goes to the issue of gun control, where those who exercise their Second Amendment rights are often asked ‘why do you need an “assault weapon”’? As with the exercising of any other right, a citizen is not required to explain his ‘need’ to own a given firearm otherwise legal to posses in his jurisdiction. Citizens often say and do things in the context of their civil liberties that others find strange or even offensive, but that is not justification to curtail or preempt the exercising of that right.

That society may perceive a potential danger with regard to citizens owning a certain firearm does not justify banning that weapon, whether he ‘needs’ that weapon or not.

So the absolute right to express oneself in a free society is protected, and we should never require (or even expect) a citizen to show restraint in exercising their rights, is that correct in your view?

Putting guns aside, do you support someone standing naked on a public street, in full view of students attending an elementary school masturbating? Such behavior is offensive but is it protected by the First Amendment?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Can the rights given us by our Constitution be abused and do we have a duty to enjoy our rights responsibly?

Gpod question.
What responsibility is attached to the right to have an abortion?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If the government wishes to restrict or preempt some form of free speech it must have a compelling reason and be rationally based.

Wishing to prevent injury and death is rational on the part of the government, and a compelling, justified reason; consequently the government is authorized to pass a law punishing someone who yells fire in a theatre, as it is not ‘protected speech.’

Where has the federal government been authorized to restrict speech?

Schenck v. United States, as well as First Amendment jurisprudence in general, applies to the Federal government, as well as the states.

 

[DStar777]

So the absolute right to express oneself in a free society is protected, and we should never require (or even expect) a citizen to show restraint in exercising their rights, is that correct in your view?

There is a legal restraint on action, but not on the exercise of rights. Not every action is a right so your choice of language above represents a complete misunderstanding of what rights are but this is not uncommon. The example of the naked masturbator in full view of children was an interesting example. Do you think such action is a right but that it must be infringed for the welfare of the kids? I don't think he had such a right in the first place.