Gun Control - What's the Problem?

[Coyote]

I am not sure what your issue is. My mod note was not directed at you, but at those who’s posts I had to delete. PM me if you want to discuss it further.

I think it's my hyperthyroidism. I've been in and out of the hospital the last few weeks staying three to four days at a time for treatment. And I'm stuck at home on very, very, very light activity. Three times I had episodes of thyroid storm. So, that's why.

That stuff makes you snap on people for the most benig of things. Seriously. My dog even tippy toes around the house when he passes by me. And he's a Kangal, usually pretty independent and brave. So, yeah.

Couple of weeks ago I tried a trip to wally world and I was able to drive down there and walk through the parking lot. But then I got really, really dizzy, heart rat ewent way up and as soon as I walked in this woman was pushing a cart with a kid in it and lemme tell ya, that kid was raising hell. As soon as I alked in I yelled shut that damn kid up. Then I turned around and left because like I said, I had an episide of thyroid storm right then. I had to sit.

Anyway. It makes you a total dick to people sometimes. Verbally, at least. But then once you refresh your med dose your hormone imbalance evens out. Flip side of it is you feel like an ass the next time you see th person you whigged out on. Sorry, no hard feelings?

They're probably gonna want my plinker next. lol.

No problem, sounds like you have a lot to contend with, no hard feelings

 

[Coyote]

So where in the Constitution does it say if "I" violate somebody's rights, the government has the right to violate mine?

As I stated, rights were granted so that government could not violate them. As an individual, I have no mandate to do the same. The Constitution doesn't prohibit me from violating your rights, it prohibits the government from violating those rights.

In other words, government cannot stop me from free speech, but if I go to work and call my boss a MF, and tell him to go to hell, he can fire me because he's not bound by the Constitution of allowing free speech. Only the government is. So I can call my Congress person a MF, and tell him or her to go to hell with no repercussions, but I can't do the same with my employer.

So you say that you can go into a school, murder 40 school children, wouldn't a couple of hundred and you can't lose any of your "Rights" even though you terrorized the whole community and murdered and maimed many? We should just look at you and say, shame, shame and go on with our lives, or at least those of us still alive.

I don't understand what you're getting at.

I clearly stated that government does have the ability to remove rights from people. The Constitution does not guarantee rights if you choose to surrender them by violating law.

If I am a convicted felon, the government has the ability to not allow me to exercise my right of firearm ownership. I made that choice when I decided to become a felon.

But it wasn't your choice. I know of a number of convicted felons on Parole that certainly don't have that choice. It's not the person that removes those "Rights", it's the Government. And guess why?

The government removes rights based on your actions. The felons you know did make that choice when they committed their crimes and got caught. Ask anyone of them if they knew they wouldn't be able to ever possess a firearm again, vote in most states, and have difficulty finding a decent paying job.

They knew all of these things before committing the crime, so they made that choice. Nobody forced them to rob a convenience store.

Yet you say that the Government can't take anyone's rights. You even said it applied to Felons. Your goal post must be Quantum powered. Now, who grants you those rights in the first place. And don't say it's God Given. If a person is an Athiest does that mean they have no rights?

I also don’t recall any right to bear arms in any scripture.

The people grant rights through the government.

 

[Rigby5]

N

Those stats are for general murders, but interesting none the less. We're right up there with all the other shitholes.

We need gun control to stop the irresponsible, Nazis, and mentally disturbed from having access to guns. America is a capitalist shithole. Only communism could save it.

You have that totally backwards.
What gives Fascists power IS gun control.
The only way to reduce fascism is to end gun control first.

The reason Hitler was able to massacre all the Spartacus League in Germany was that there was such strict gun control.
Only Hitlers forces were exempt, because the SA were a privileged veterans society that claimed to be promoting marksmanship.

No progressive, liberal, or leftest would ever support gun control.
Gun control has always been used to murder anyone against racism or for things like labor unions.

Nazis supported guns for Nazis. That helped them kill Jews in the Holocaust.

The Nazis were a political party.
They were the government, so they did not need guns.
They just had to order gun control on the Jews, and then allow the armed government employees, who were not party members, to commit the Holocaust.
It was gun control that allowed the Holocaust to happen.
And it could easily happen here as well, if we ever allow gun control to happen.
That is why we must reduce the existing gun control that is already too out of control, and never allow gun control.
The police and military will always do what ever they are told, so they must never be allowed a monopoly on weapons.

There was ALREADY strong gun control in Germany when the Nazis came to power. They LOOSENED laws for nonJews.

That is true, but irrelevant. It was still gun control laws by the Weimar Republic that allowed the SA and Nazis to murder all the opposition, and take over. Gun control is the ultimate in anti democracy. It always results in a dictatorship. It is always wrong, evil, and disgusting.

 

[Rigby5]

We have the right to life now in the US, but some one can still murder you.

Yea,,,in a mass murder attack with an assault rifle

You can't stop murder by making one of the means of committing murder illegal.
Murder is ALREADY illegal.
That does not stop anyone at all.
To stop murder, you need the power to enforce what is right, which means you need to be armed.
By limiting arms to just police, you just give away any means of defense, and cause police to become even more of a threat than they ordinarily are inherently.
Why would anyone in a democratic republic, created through armed struggle and sacrifice, even want to give all that up in order to create a dictatorship where only the police and military have guns, and the ordinary people are helpless in the face of an all powerful and corrupt government?
If you say government is not corrupt and can be trusted, you would have to be lying or an idiot.
Look at the history of lies and murder, like Vietnam, WMD in Iraq, the invasion of Iraq, the War on Drugs causing the highest incarceration rate in the world, taxation without representation for all the convicted felons not allowed to vote, income inequality, tax loopholes for the wealthy, etc.
This is not at all a government we should surrender guns to.
In fact, what we should do instead is to demand that the police be unarmed.
They are the dangerous ones with firearms, who murder thousands of innocents every year.

 

[Rigby5]

Technically traffic laws are voluntary contractual obligations when you accept the license. That is because driving itself, is not really a right.
But government has no authority of its own.
So government can only act in the defense of the rights of others.
That means that it can incarcerate you when you harm others, in order to protect others.
But once out, there no longer is a legal valid justification for harming the convicted felon.
Government does not have that authority, as it defends no one.
In fact, by denying the right to vote, government is committing the crime of taxation without representation,

Ironically we need 'license' to exercise our 2nd. Which is a right. And we have to involuntarily relinquish our 1st and 5th amendment rights in order to apply for license to require a gun.

Good grief. That's a 10th amendment violation itself. I don't recall that requirement to be a power of the federal government in the constitution either.

Wrong.

License and permit requirement have been upheld by the courts with regard to citizens exercising their First Amendment rights; the Second Amendment right is no different.

Licensing and permit requirements violate neither the First nor Fifth Amendment – the notion is utter nonsense.

And there’s nothing in the 10th Amendment that prohibits the Federal government from enacting firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment case law.

Ridiculous.
No right has ever required or allowed licensing or permits.
The only time permits of licensing has ever been upheld in courts are when it harms others, like taking over a street for a political parade.

The 10 amendment specifically says the federal government can ONLY legislate where it is specifically granted jurisdiction by an article in the constitution. There is no such article allowing the federal government any authority at all over any weapons at all.
None!
There is not a single federal firearms or drug law that is even remotely legal.

 

[Rigby5]

You want the job, stay clean. If you are using during your vacation then chances are you are also using when you aren't on vacation. Don't lie about it. It means a lot of lives are on the line for certain jobs. It's like when I was an Aircraft Specialist. Do you really want to fly on an Aircraft that a druggie worked on? Or when I worked High Scale. Certain jobs MUST be completely clean for the safety of everyone. I don't find ConWays drug policy wrong at all. If you do then maybe you should go work at something less dangerous.

That makes no sense and is an illegal invasion of privacy.
There is no drug that continues to have effect after 12 hours or so.
Just because the drug test can find minute traces in your urine, does not mean you are high, dangerous, or incapable of delicate work.
The government has no right or authority to say what you do, only that you do your job correctly.
And drug testing does not at all do that.

In my case, drug testing is a government requirement. However it's not so in other industries. Companies get breaks in their Workman's Compensation insurance if they participate in drug screenings for employees. But because government forces us to comply, I do find that a violation of our fourth Amendment rights.

You have the option to go work somewhere else. I hear that grocery baggers are probably not randomly drug tested.

So are you saying that when government violates your rights, it's up to you as a citizen to take action so your rights are no longer being violated by the government?

If that's the case, then why have any rights at all? It's like saying if you don't want government to search your home without a warrant, don't live in a home. Live under a bridge and that's totally constitutional.

Our rights are inalienable, they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

Although inalienable, our rights are not absolute – they are subject to limits, regulations, and restrictions by government consistent with Constitutional case law.

When government enacts laws repugnant to the Constitution, the people have the First Amendment right to seek relief through either the political or judicial process.

The Second Amendment right is no different, likewise subject to limits, regulations, and restrictions by government consistent with Second Amendment case law.

Of course no right is absolute and all require some sort of limits, restrictions, etc.
But NOT by the federal government.
The federal government is strictly limited to ONLY what the constitution says it is supposed to have jurisdiction over.
And weapons clearly is NOT at all one of the areas where there is to be any federal jurisdiction at all.
And that should be obvious.
In some areas of Alaska, it is essential to keep a rifle in an open rack in each vehicle, while in a place like NYC, that would be a road rage disaster.
Weapons laws obviously were intended to be local, and must remain local.
That is the law, and all federal weapons laws are inherently illegal and must be eliminated at all costs.

 

[Rigby5]

i'd pay him $100 to go to a gun show and try to buy a gun w/o a background check and double that if he's actually able to do it and have an independent person film the events.

Under federal law, private-party sellers are not required to perform background checks on buyers, record the sale, or ask for identification, whether at a gun show or other venue. This is in contrast to sales by gun stores and other Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders, who are required to perform background checks and record all sales on almost all buyers, regardless of whether the venue is their business location or a gun show. Some states have passed laws to require background checks for private sales with limited exceptions. Access to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is limited to FFL holders.

The holes in background checks are so numerous as to make the laws ineffective at their primary purpose, keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people. Lobbying groups have seen to that.

Unfortunately, to have really effective gun control requires that gun ownership become a privilege not a right. So as the killing power of guns become greater so will the scope of mass murder.

In the United States of America, it should be a "privilege" to have the ability to defend yourself?

Yes.
Law enforcement is certainly capability of defending the people in a society where there are no guns. In fact, law enforcement would be far more effective.

It would be easy for police to eliminate all crime if only we let them.
All they have to do is implement preventive detention, so that crime became impossible.
We could also ensure police censored all speech so that nothing subversive or violence promoting was ever allowed.
All we have to do is give absolute power to the police and we would have absolute safety.
All we have to do is elect someone like Putin as president in the US, and all our problems would be solved.

 

[Rigby5]

So you say that you can go into a school, murder 40 school children, wouldn't a couple of hundred and you can't lose any of your "Rights" even though you terrorized the whole community and murdered and maimed many? We should just look at you and say, shame, shame and go on with our lives, or at least those of us still alive.

I don't understand what you're getting at.

I clearly stated that government does have the ability to remove rights from people. The Constitution does not guarantee rights if you choose to surrender them by violating law.

If I am a convicted felon, the government has the ability to not allow me to exercise my right of firearm ownership. I made that choice when I decided to become a felon.

But it wasn't your choice. I know of a number of convicted felons on Parole that certainly don't have that choice. It's not the person that removes those "Rights", it's the Government. And guess why?

The government removes rights based on your actions. The felons you know did make that choice when they committed their crimes and got caught. Ask anyone of them if they knew they wouldn't be able to ever possess a firearm again, vote in most states, and have difficulty finding a decent paying job.

They knew all of these things before committing the crime, so they made that choice. Nobody forced them to rob a convenience store.

Yet you say that the Government can't take anyone's rights. You even said it applied to Felons. Your goal post must be Quantum powered. Now, who grants you those rights in the first place. And don't say it's God Given. If a person is an Athiest does that mean they have no rights?

I also don’t recall any right to bear arms in any scripture.

The people grant rights through the government.

Nonsense.
People create government, so then have to be the ONLY source of authority.
Since government is created by us, it can not possibly have more authority than us, and can not possibly be the source of rights.
Government is just a hired employee we delegate SOME of our inherent authority to, in order to minimize conflicts between individuals.
The whole point of rights is that they can NOT be granted, and must be inherent.
Anything granted can be taken away arbitrarily, and government does not have that authority.
The proof is that government is transient.
We create government, change government, and when necessary, we rebel and destroy government.
Government is a subordinate agent, and nothing more.
When it does not do what we want, we terminate it.

 

[Rigby5]

Because we're the only nation in the world which specifically bases it's form of government on the notion that all men are created...endowed by their creator. It says so right there in the document. It doesn't matter what other countries do in this regard.

Understood, but the point I'm making is that it is the government that grants you rights, just like it's the government that creates laws. They don't appear out of thin air and our rights are not applicable in every other country in the world. They are applicable to our citizens under our Constitution where those rights were written by government.

That is incorrect.
We, you and I, and others, create government.
It is subordinate and inferior in terms of authority to us.
We hire government to do certain things for us, but government can never be superior to its employers, us,
Governments do NOT really create laws at all.
Laws are supposed to be based simply on the pragmatic requirements necessary in order to protect individual inherent rights.
That is abstracted in to a constitution, and then legislators can pen laws in order to implement those inherent and pre-established protections of rights.
A government can never write a constitution, because a government does not exist yet before the Constitution is written.

Do you suppose if we were invaded by China, they took over the government, you would still have your rights because they were written by the people?

You misunderstand.
Rights are inherent for what is right to humans.
If the country is invaded or criminals take over some other way, what is right remains right.
The fact you may no longer have government backing up your rights changes nothing as far as what is right and what rights you will fight for.
The fact you may be killed, does not alter what is right and what rights all humans should inherently have.
Having rights does not mean they necessarily can't be violated.
We have the right to life now in the US, but some one can still murder you.
That does not change your right to life.
You can tell because the murderer will be prosecuted if caught.
Governments or criminals can not change what is right or what rights are.

No, because the Constitution refers to the government violating your rights, not another individual.

A convicted felon cannot buy or be in possession of a firearm. The right to be in possession of a firearm is guaranteed in the Constitution. The people who took that right away from you was the government. Same thing with voting.

The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is also guaranteed. But if you are arrested, imprisoned, and even sentenced to execution, all those rights are taken away from you by the government. If you are imprisoned, you lose the right to liberty by the government. If you are imprisoned, you are denied the right to happiness by the government. If you are imprisoned and executed for a capital crime, your right to life has been eliminated by the government.

No, you do not lose rights because rights are inherent and can not be taken away by government.
Rights can be restricted in use, but only by a conflict between your rights and the rights of others, which allows government agents to become empowered by the defense of the rights of others, to temporarily restrict the exercise of your rights.
For example, you suggest that rights of those imprisoned for crimes have been legally taken away, and that is not true.
Those imprisoned are not allowed weapons for their own defense, but if guards fail to defend a prisoner, they prisoner can sue and the negligent guards charged with a crime. You do not lose the right to liberty when imprisoned, and a reasonable attempt at exercise, communication, visitations, entertainment, pleasant food, etc., must be provided.
Government has no authority over rights at all.
All government is supposed to be able to do legally, is what the defense of the rights of others requires.
It is only the defense of the rights of others that empowers government at all.
Government is supposed to have no authority of its own.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I still wanna know where it says people who have served jail sentences can't bear arms in the constitution.

It can be found here in the Constitution:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

"It's in the Constitution right here in this thing that isn't the actual Constitution!"

He's one of these guys:

It's alive. IT'S ALIVE!!!!

.

 

[iceberg]

i'd pay him $100 to go to a gun show and try to buy a gun w/o a background check and double that if he's actually able to do it and have an independent person film the events.

Under federal law, private-party sellers are not required to perform background checks on buyers, record the sale, or ask for identification, whether at a gun show or other venue. This is in contrast to sales by gun stores and other Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders, who are required to perform background checks and record all sales on almost all buyers, regardless of whether the venue is their business location or a gun show. Some states have passed laws to require background checks for private sales with limited exceptions. Access to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is limited to FFL holders.

The holes in background checks are so numerous as to make the laws ineffective at their primary purpose, keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people. Lobbying groups have seen to that.

Unfortunately, to have really effective gun control requires that gun ownership become a privilege not a right. So as the killing power of guns become greater so will the scope of mass murder.

In the United States of America, it should be a "privilege" to have the ability to defend yourself?

Yes.
Law enforcement is certainly capability of defending the people in a society where there are no guns. In fact, law enforcement would be far more effective.

this the same law enforcement many on the left demonize all the time? obama spent a presidency shaming? that shoots innocent HANDS UP people?

that law enforcement?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Understood, but the point I'm making is that it is the government that grants you rights, just like it's the government that creates laws. They don't appear out of thin air and our rights are not applicable in every other country in the world. They are applicable to our citizens under our Constitution where those rights were written by government.

That is incorrect.
We, you and I, and others, create government.
It is subordinate and inferior in terms of authority to us.
We hire government to do certain things for us, but government can never be superior to its employers, us,
Governments do NOT really create laws at all.
Laws are supposed to be based simply on the pragmatic requirements necessary in order to protect individual inherent rights.
That is abstracted in to a constitution, and then legislators can pen laws in order to implement those inherent and pre-established protections of rights.
A government can never write a constitution, because a government does not exist yet before the Constitution is written.

Do you suppose if we were invaded by China, they took over the government, you would still have your rights because they were written by the people?

You misunderstand.
Rights are inherent for what is right to humans.
If the country is invaded or criminals take over some other way, what is right remains right.
The fact you may no longer have government backing up your rights changes nothing as far as what is right and what rights you will fight for.
The fact you may be killed, does not alter what is right and what rights all humans should inherently have.
Having rights does not mean they necessarily can't be violated.
We have the right to life now in the US, but some one can still murder you.
That does not change your right to life.
You can tell because the murderer will be prosecuted if caught.
Governments or criminals can not change what is right or what rights are.

No, because the Constitution refers to the government violating your rights, not another individual.

A convicted felon cannot buy or be in possession of a firearm. The right to be in possession of a firearm is guaranteed in the Constitution. The people who took that right away from you was the government. Same thing with voting.

The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is also guaranteed. But if you are arrested, imprisoned, and even sentenced to execution, all those rights are taken away from you by the government. If you are imprisoned, you lose the right to liberty by the government. If you are imprisoned, you are denied the right to happiness by the government. If you are imprisoned and executed for a capital crime, your right to life has been eliminated by the government.

No, you do not lose rights because rights are inherent and can not be taken away by government.
Rights can be restricted in use, but only by a conflict between your rights and the rights of others, which allows government agents to become empowered by the defense of the rights of others, to temporarily restrict the exercise of your rights.
For example, you suggest that rights of those imprisoned for crimes have been legally taken away, and that is not true.
Those imprisoned are not allowed weapons for their own defense, but if guards fail to defend a prisoner, they prisoner can sue and the negligent guards charged with a crime. You do not lose the right to liberty when imprisoned, and a reasonable attempt at exercise, communication, visitations, entertainment, pleasant food, etc., must be provided.
Government has no authority over rights at all.
All government is supposed to be able to do legally, is what the defense of the rights of others requires.
It is only the defense of the rights of others that empowers government at all.
Government is supposed to have no authority of its own.

You can debate government philosophy all you want. I'm telling you how it is today.

You can't pursue happiness in prison. You can be treated humanly, but who is happy behind bars? Not even an animal is happy that way. Having a right suspended for life is having your rights completely stripped away. It's the same thing.

If you are sentenced to execution, you are stripped away of your right to life. You are going to die at the hands of government whether you like it or not.

As a truck driver, I don't have fourth amendment rights, and I'm not hurting a fly or imposing on the rights of anybody else. The government just decided they are not going to allow us to have that right. Along with that I have no equal protection under the law either. To add insult to injury, most of the restrictions and laws created against us were not even written by electors. They were written by bureaucrats.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

So you say that you can go into a school, murder 40 school children, wouldn't a couple of hundred and you can't lose any of your "Rights" even though you terrorized the whole community and murdered and maimed many? We should just look at you and say, shame, shame and go on with our lives, or at least those of us still alive.

I don't understand what you're getting at.

I clearly stated that government does have the ability to remove rights from people. The Constitution does not guarantee rights if you choose to surrender them by violating law.

If I am a convicted felon, the government has the ability to not allow me to exercise my right of firearm ownership. I made that choice when I decided to become a felon.

But it wasn't your choice. I know of a number of convicted felons on Parole that certainly don't have that choice. It's not the person that removes those "Rights", it's the Government. And guess why?

The government removes rights based on your actions. The felons you know did make that choice when they committed their crimes and got caught. Ask anyone of them if they knew they wouldn't be able to ever possess a firearm again, vote in most states, and have difficulty finding a decent paying job.

They knew all of these things before committing the crime, so they made that choice. Nobody forced them to rob a convenience store.

Yet you say that the Government can't take anyone's rights. You even said it applied to Felons. Your goal post must be Quantum powered. Now, who grants you those rights in the first place. And don't say it's God Given. If a person is an Athiest does that mean they have no rights?

My entire argument is that rights are given to us by the government. How could government take something away they didn't give you in the first place?

So now we are on the same page. God didn't give you the "Rights". The Government did. And Rights cannot be taken away, right? it works out this way, you call them rights but when a right affects others in a negative fashion, they become privileges. And Privileges can be taken away as long as it's done using Due Process.

Now, revisit the 2nd amendment.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

So you say that you can go into a school, murder 40 school children, wouldn't a couple of hundred and you can't lose any of your "Rights" even though you terrorized the whole community and murdered and maimed many? We should just look at you and say, shame, shame and go on with our lives, or at least those of us still alive.

I don't understand what you're getting at.

I clearly stated that government does have the ability to remove rights from people. The Constitution does not guarantee rights if you choose to surrender them by violating law.

If I am a convicted felon, the government has the ability to not allow me to exercise my right of firearm ownership. I made that choice when I decided to become a felon.

But it wasn't your choice. I know of a number of convicted felons on Parole that certainly don't have that choice. It's not the person that removes those "Rights", it's the Government. And guess why?

The government removes rights based on your actions. The felons you know did make that choice when they committed their crimes and got caught. Ask anyone of them if they knew they wouldn't be able to ever possess a firearm again, vote in most states, and have difficulty finding a decent paying job.

They knew all of these things before committing the crime, so they made that choice. Nobody forced them to rob a convenience store.

Yet you say that the Government can't take anyone's rights. You even said it applied to Felons. Your goal post must be Quantum powered. Now, who grants you those rights in the first place. And don't say it's God Given. If a person is an Athiest does that mean they have no rights?

I also don’t recall any right to bear arms in any scripture.

The people grant rights through the government.

If that is the case, it's done and undone through due process. Is everyone learning something?

 

[Rigby5]

That is incorrect.
We, you and I, and others, create government.
It is subordinate and inferior in terms of authority to us.
We hire government to do certain things for us, but government can never be superior to its employers, us,
Governments do NOT really create laws at all.
Laws are supposed to be based simply on the pragmatic requirements necessary in order to protect individual inherent rights.
That is abstracted in to a constitution, and then legislators can pen laws in order to implement those inherent and pre-established protections of rights.
A government can never write a constitution, because a government does not exist yet before the Constitution is written.

Do you suppose if we were invaded by China, they took over the government, you would still have your rights because they were written by the people?

You misunderstand.
Rights are inherent for what is right to humans.
If the country is invaded or criminals take over some other way, what is right remains right.
The fact you may no longer have government backing up your rights changes nothing as far as what is right and what rights you will fight for.
The fact you may be killed, does not alter what is right and what rights all humans should inherently have.
Having rights does not mean they necessarily can't be violated.
We have the right to life now in the US, but some one can still murder you.
That does not change your right to life.
You can tell because the murderer will be prosecuted if caught.
Governments or criminals can not change what is right or what rights are.

No, because the Constitution refers to the government violating your rights, not another individual.

A convicted felon cannot buy or be in possession of a firearm. The right to be in possession of a firearm is guaranteed in the Constitution. The people who took that right away from you was the government. Same thing with voting.

The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is also guaranteed. But if you are arrested, imprisoned, and even sentenced to execution, all those rights are taken away from you by the government. If you are imprisoned, you lose the right to liberty by the government. If you are imprisoned, you are denied the right to happiness by the government. If you are imprisoned and executed for a capital crime, your right to life has been eliminated by the government.

And what got you there in the first place? You violated others right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So where in the Constitution does it say if "I" violate somebody's rights, the government has the right to violate mine?

As I stated, rights were granted so that government could not violate them. As an individual, I have no mandate to do the same. The Constitution doesn't prohibit me from violating your rights, it prohibits the government from violating those rights.

In other words, government cannot stop me from free speech, but if I go to work and call my boss a MF, and tell him to go to hell, he can fire me because he's not bound by the Constitution of allowing free speech. Only the government is. So I can call my Congress person a MF, and tell him or her to go to hell with no repercussions, but I can't do the same with my employer.

The Constitution has only to do with dividing jurisdictions between federal and all other.
Government has no rights at all, but can act as an agent for the rights of others, and it is those rights of others that can authorize government to restrict your rights, but never to attempt to remove them.
Rights can not be granted, but can be used as the source of authority in order to create a government,
And then that created government can be used as an agent to protect rights of individuals.
Which means doing what is necessary in order to prevent anyone from violating them.
Restricting rights as a consequence of previous criminal acts, is not something government has the inherent authority to do, but government can do it because it borrows from the inherent authority of those it is pledged to protect.

What you are getting confused about it the role of the Constitution.
Most law is common law, and has nothing to do with the Constitution.
The constitution is division of jurisdictions, and often a Bill of Rights set of restrictions as well.
But most actual criminal statutes come from ancient principles of human fairness, like against theft, fraud, rape, extortion, etc.
The Constitution is supposed to mention broad areas and concepts, but only as necessary for defining jurisdictions.

You can call your boss anything you want legally.
It is just that he has no legal obligation to maintain your employment, at any time.
There are no laws involved there at all.
Being fired is not a repercussion because being employed is not a right.

 

[Rigby5]

Do you suppose if we were invaded by China, they took over the government, you would still have your rights because they were written by the people?

You misunderstand.
Rights are inherent for what is right to humans.
If the country is invaded or criminals take over some other way, what is right remains right.
The fact you may no longer have government backing up your rights changes nothing as far as what is right and what rights you will fight for.
The fact you may be killed, does not alter what is right and what rights all humans should inherently have.
Having rights does not mean they necessarily can't be violated.
We have the right to life now in the US, but some one can still murder you.
That does not change your right to life.
You can tell because the murderer will be prosecuted if caught.
Governments or criminals can not change what is right or what rights are.

No, because the Constitution refers to the government violating your rights, not another individual.

A convicted felon cannot buy or be in possession of a firearm. The right to be in possession of a firearm is guaranteed in the Constitution. The people who took that right away from you was the government. Same thing with voting.

The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is also guaranteed. But if you are arrested, imprisoned, and even sentenced to execution, all those rights are taken away from you by the government. If you are imprisoned, you lose the right to liberty by the government. If you are imprisoned, you are denied the right to happiness by the government. If you are imprisoned and executed for a capital crime, your right to life has been eliminated by the government.

And what got you there in the first place? You violated others right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So where in the Constitution does it say if "I" violate somebody's rights, the government has the right to violate mine?

As I stated, rights were granted so that government could not violate them. As an individual, I have no mandate to do the same. The Constitution doesn't prohibit me from violating your rights, it prohibits the government from violating those rights.

In other words, government cannot stop me from free speech, but if I go to work and call my boss a MF, and tell him to go to hell, he can fire me because he's not bound by the Constitution of allowing free speech. Only the government is. So I can call my Congress person a MF, and tell him or her to go to hell with no repercussions, but I can't do the same with my employer.

So you say that you can go into a school, murder 40 school children, wouldn't a couple of hundred and you can't lose any of your "Rights" even though you terrorized the whole community and murdered and maimed many? We should just look at you and say, shame, shame and go on with our lives, or at least those of us still alive.

Since government does not create or grant rights, it can not take them away.
When a person is incarcerated, their rights are restricted, but not by government.
The authority is coming from those others the government is obligated to protect.
And if another inmate murders a prisoner, the other inmate is charged with murder, so you still have rights, even if restricted,

 

[Rigby5]

You misunderstand.
Rights are inherent for what is right to humans.
If the country is invaded or criminals take over some other way, what is right remains right.
The fact you may no longer have government backing up your rights changes nothing as far as what is right and what rights you will fight for.
The fact you may be killed, does not alter what is right and what rights all humans should inherently have.
Having rights does not mean they necessarily can't be violated.
We have the right to life now in the US, but some one can still murder you.
That does not change your right to life.
You can tell because the murderer will be prosecuted if caught.
Governments or criminals can not change what is right or what rights are.

No, because the Constitution refers to the government violating your rights, not another individual.

A convicted felon cannot buy or be in possession of a firearm. The right to be in possession of a firearm is guaranteed in the Constitution. The people who took that right away from you was the government. Same thing with voting.

The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is also guaranteed. But if you are arrested, imprisoned, and even sentenced to execution, all those rights are taken away from you by the government. If you are imprisoned, you lose the right to liberty by the government. If you are imprisoned, you are denied the right to happiness by the government. If you are imprisoned and executed for a capital crime, your right to life has been eliminated by the government.

And what got you there in the first place? You violated others right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So where in the Constitution does it say if "I" violate somebody's rights, the government has the right to violate mine?

As I stated, rights were granted so that government could not violate them. As an individual, I have no mandate to do the same. The Constitution doesn't prohibit me from violating your rights, it prohibits the government from violating those rights.

In other words, government cannot stop me from free speech, but if I go to work and call my boss a MF, and tell him to go to hell, he can fire me because he's not bound by the Constitution of allowing free speech. Only the government is. So I can call my Congress person a MF, and tell him or her to go to hell with no repercussions, but I can't do the same with my employer.

So you say that you can go into a school, murder 40 school children, wouldn't a couple of hundred and you can't lose any of your "Rights" even though you terrorized the whole community and murdered and maimed many? We should just look at you and say, shame, shame and go on with our lives, or at least those of us still alive.

I don't understand what you're getting at.

I clearly stated that government does have the ability to remove rights from people. The Constitution does not guarantee rights if you choose to surrender them by violating law.

If I am a convicted felon, the government has the ability to not allow me to exercise my right of firearm ownership. I made that choice when I decided to become a felon.

That sounds reasonable, but it can't work if you think about it.
It allows for a 2 tiered system, where some have more rights than others.
It is fine to restrict rights after a judge has ruled in court, but not once the sentence is over.
That amounts to something like slavery.
It would encourage government to make everyone a convicted felon, just to be safe.
And that is already a problem due to the War on Drugs.
They estimate that almost 40% of the Black population is not being allowed to vote, due to drug convictions.
Very bad potential.
No adult should be denied their right to vote, even while incarcerated, in my opinion.

 

[Flopper]

Because we're the only nation in the world which specifically bases it's form of government on the notion that all men are created...endowed by their creator. It says so right there in the document. It doesn't matter what other countries do in this regard.

Understood, but the point I'm making is that it is the government that grants you rights, just like it's the government that creates laws. They don't appear out of thin air and our rights are not applicable in every other country in the world. They are applicable to our citizens under our Constitution where those rights were written by government.

That is incorrect.
We, you and I, and others, create government.
It is subordinate and inferior in terms of authority to us.
We hire government to do certain things for us, but government can never be superior to its employers, us,
Governments do NOT really create laws at all.
Laws are supposed to be based simply on the pragmatic requirements necessary in order to protect individual inherent rights.
That is abstracted in to a constitution, and then legislators can pen laws in order to implement those inherent and pre-established protections of rights.
A government can never write a constitution, because a government does not exist yet before the Constitution is written.

Do you suppose if we were invaded by China, they took over the government, you would still have your rights because they were written by the people?

You misunderstand.
Rights are inherent for what is right to humans.
If the country is invaded or criminals take over some other way, what is right remains right.
The fact you may no longer have government backing up your rights changes nothing as far as what is right and what rights you will fight for.
The fact you may be killed, does not alter what is right and what rights all humans should inherently have.
Having rights does not mean they necessarily can't be violated.
We have the right to life now in the US, but some one can still murder you.
That does not change your right to life.
You can tell because the murderer will be prosecuted if caught.
Governments or criminals can not change what is right or what rights are.

No, because the Constitution refers to the government violating your rights, not another individual.

A convicted felon cannot buy or be in possession of a firearm. The right to be in possession of a firearm is guaranteed in the Constitution. The people who took that right away from you was the government. Same thing with voting.

The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is also guaranteed. But if you are arrested, imprisoned, and even sentenced to execution, all those rights are taken away from you by the government. If you are imprisoned, you lose the right to liberty by the government. If you are imprisoned, you are denied the right to happiness by the government. If you are imprisoned and executed for a capital crime, your right to life has been eliminated by the government.

No, the Constitution does not guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness because it's not in the constitution but rather the Declaration of Independence.

The actual text reads, "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". You are endowed with these by the Creator. There is no legal guarantee that your right to liberty can not suspended by criminal conviction.

By their very nature, having been bestowed by God, or by happenstance of birth, inalienable rights can only be suspended or abolished in dire circumstance. According to the Constitution of the United States and the legal precedent of the nation, there are certain exceptions to inalienable rights. For instance, a person’s inalienable rights may be temporarily suspended through due process which is the case when person is found guilt of crime and sentenced to prison.
Inalienable Rights - Definition, Examples, Cases

 

[Cecilie1200]

So you say that you can go into a school, murder 40 school children, wouldn't a couple of hundred and you can't lose any of your "Rights" even though you terrorized the whole community and murdered and maimed many? We should just look at you and say, shame, shame and go on with our lives, or at least those of us still alive.

I don't understand what you're getting at.

I clearly stated that government does have the ability to remove rights from people. The Constitution does not guarantee rights if you choose to surrender them by violating law.

If I am a convicted felon, the government has the ability to not allow me to exercise my right of firearm ownership. I made that choice when I decided to become a felon.

But it wasn't your choice. I know of a number of convicted felons on Parole that certainly don't have that choice. It's not the person that removes those "Rights", it's the Government. And guess why?

The government removes rights based on your actions. The felons you know did make that choice when they committed their crimes and got caught. Ask anyone of them if they knew they wouldn't be able to ever possess a firearm again, vote in most states, and have difficulty finding a decent paying job.

They knew all of these things before committing the crime, so they made that choice. Nobody forced them to rob a convenience store.

Yet you say that the Government can't take anyone's rights. You even said it applied to Felons. Your goal post must be Quantum powered. Now, who grants you those rights in the first place. And don't say it's God Given. If a person is an Athiest does that mean they have no rights?

I also don’t recall any right to bear arms in any scripture.

The people grant rights through the government.

No, they don't. You clearly don't understand the meaning of the word "rights", or the difference between them and privileges.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I don't understand what you're getting at.

I clearly stated that government does have the ability to remove rights from people. The Constitution does not guarantee rights if you choose to surrender them by violating law.

If I am a convicted felon, the government has the ability to not allow me to exercise my right of firearm ownership. I made that choice when I decided to become a felon.

But it wasn't your choice. I know of a number of convicted felons on Parole that certainly don't have that choice. It's not the person that removes those "Rights", it's the Government. And guess why?

The government removes rights based on your actions. The felons you know did make that choice when they committed their crimes and got caught. Ask anyone of them if they knew they wouldn't be able to ever possess a firearm again, vote in most states, and have difficulty finding a decent paying job.

They knew all of these things before committing the crime, so they made that choice. Nobody forced them to rob a convenience store.

Yet you say that the Government can't take anyone's rights. You even said it applied to Felons. Your goal post must be Quantum powered. Now, who grants you those rights in the first place. And don't say it's God Given. If a person is an Athiest does that mean they have no rights?

I also don’t recall any right to bear arms in any scripture.

The people grant rights through the government.

No, they don't. You clearly don't understand the meaning of the word "rights", or the difference between them and privileges.

Easy answer. A Right is only a Right as long as it doesn't negatively affect another person or persons. And at that point it becomes a Privilege.