Gun Wisdom

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Do you really think the "original understanding" extended to allowing violent felons to be allowed to have guns. I wouldn't think so.

No, nor did the Heller Court. Or more precisely, it never commented on the issue, but stated its decision should not be inferred by lower courts to authorize striking down laws prohibiting felons from owning firearms.

when a person pays a debt do you continue charging them for a debt that is already paid?

When they are released from prison their debt is paid.

As we know no right is absolute – including the right to self-defense or to own a handgun. The right to free speech doesn’t extent to camping out in National parks, for example.

The state may preempt or restrict a right if it can demonstrate a compelling governmental interest and substantial evidence in support. It can be argued that keeping firearms out of the hands of convicted felons is a legitimate state interest, and would likely withstand challenge.

 

[westwall]

Then why is the right given to "the people" instead of a "person" as in the 3rd, 5th and 6th? "The people" are mentioned in the 1st, 2nd and 4th because those rights may not be abridged as a general rule, but may be abridged upon the individual, because of the right of "the people" to security and reasonable order. The Bill of Rights isn't a suicide pact, after all. The 5th and 6th include wording indicating an "hard" individual right with regard to due process in the courts, for example. Wording not present in the 1st, 2nd and 4th. Therefore, while regulation may not be specifically mentioned, it's definitelty implied or the right would have been made "person"al.

So, is this an individual right or does it only apply to the States?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Two different questions, really. It's not an individual right, because there are instances where all those rights are and may be abridged. I believe it does apply to the states, as they may not indiscriminately deprive "the people" of those rights.

I hate to point out the obvious, but if it's not an individual right how then can the States deprive "the people" of that right?

 

[konradv]

So, is this an individual right or does it only apply to the States?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Two different questions, really. It's not an individual right, because there are instances where all those rights are and may be abridged. I believe it does apply to the states, as they may not indiscriminately deprive "the people" of those rights.

I hate to point out the obvious, but if it's not an individual right how then can the States deprive "the people" of that right?

You're conflating the two and I'm not really sure what your problem is. The state may not abridge an individual right, like due process in the courts. If a right is given to "the people", it's not an individual right and may be abridged in some manner. Examples, speech: you may not divulge state secrets, religion: human sacrifice definitely abridged, but also things like consumption of peyote, assembly: you may not assemble just anywhere without clearance to insure others aren't inconvenienced or put in danger, guns: none for violent felons, registration to aid law enforcement.

 

[Dr Grump]

Does it annoy you that I don't share your lofty opinion of yourself?

Good.

No. I don't think about what you think of me....

The evidence suggests otherwise.

The evidence being?

 

[daveman]

No. I don't think about what you think of me....

The evidence suggests otherwise.

The evidence being?

The fact that you just asked that question.

 

[westwall]

Two different questions, really. It's not an individual right, because there are instances where all those rights are and may be abridged. I believe it does apply to the states, as they may not indiscriminately deprive "the people" of those rights.

I hate to point out the obvious, but if it's not an individual right how then can the States deprive "the people" of that right?

You're conflating the two and I'm not really sure what your problem is. The state may not abridge an individual right, like due process in the courts. If a right is given to "the people", it's not an individual right and may be abridged in some manner. Examples, speech: you may not divulge state secrets, religion: human sacrifice definitely abridged, but also things like consumption of peyote, assembly: you may not assemble just anywhere without clearance to insure others aren't inconvenienced or put in danger, guns: none for violent felons, registration to aid law enforcement.

So that beggars this question. What IS an individual right?

 

[konradv]

I hate to point out the obvious, but if it's not an individual right how then can the States deprive "the people" of that right?

You're conflating the two and I'm not really sure what your problem is. The state may not abridge an individual right, like due process in the courts. If a right is given to "the people", it's not an individual right and may be abridged in some manner. Examples, speech: you may not divulge state secrets, religion: human sacrifice definitely abridged, but also things like consumption of peyote, assembly: you may not assemble just anywhere without clearance to insure others aren't inconvenienced or put in danger, guns: none for violent felons, registration to aid law enforcement.

So that beggars this question. What IS an individual right?

The ones in the BofR that mention a "person" rather than "the people".

 

[westwall]

You're conflating the two and I'm not really sure what your problem is. The state may not abridge an individual right, like due process in the courts. If a right is given to "the people", it's not an individual right and may be abridged in some manner. Examples, speech: you may not divulge state secrets, religion: human sacrifice definitely abridged, but also things like consumption of peyote, assembly: you may not assemble just anywhere without clearance to insure others aren't inconvenienced or put in danger, guns: none for violent felons, registration to aid law enforcement.

So that beggars this question. What IS an individual right?

The ones in the BofR that mention a "person" rather than "the people".

So basically your claim is the Bill of Rights only refers to individual rights in Ammendments 5 and 6 is that correct? All others are State's rights of some sort? Is that correct?

 

[konradv]

So that beggars this question. What IS an individual right?

The ones in the BofR that mention a "person" rather than "the people".

So basically your claim is the Bill of Rights only refers to individual rights in Ammendments 5 and 6 is that correct? All others are State's rights of some sort? Is that correct?

No, the others are "collective rights", i.e. they can't be categorically abridged, but may be abridged per the examples in my earlier post. Everything is IMO, of course. As for those that confer individual rights, I'd say 3rd and 5th through 8th.

 

[westwall]

The ones in the BofR that mention a "person" rather than "the people".

So basically your claim is the Bill of Rights only refers to individual rights in Ammendments 5 and 6 is that correct? All others are State's rights of some sort? Is that correct?

No, the others are "collective rights", i.e. they can't be categorically abridged, but may be abridged per the examples in my earlier post. Everything is IMO, of course. As for those that confer individual rights, I'd say 3rd and 5th through 8th.

Interesting. Have you ever read the thoughts of the founders? Especially as regards individual rights?

 

[konradv]

So basically your claim is the Bill of Rights only refers to individual rights in Ammendments 5 and 6 is that correct? All others are State's rights of some sort? Is that correct?

No, the others are "collective rights", i.e. they can't be categorically abridged, but may be abridged per the examples in my earlier post. Everything is IMO, of course. As for those that confer individual rights, I'd say 3rd and 5th through 8th.

Interesting. Have you ever read the thoughts of the founders? Especially as regards individual rights?

Not recently, but they lived over 200 years ago and didn't expect us to have the same perspective on all things that they did. Hence, they gave us a short document, open to interpretation with the ability to move with the times. If you're implying "original intent", my belief is that it doesn't exist, as it assumes they all had the same "intent". IMO, there were "original intents" that they left for future generations to work out.

 

[westwall]

No, the others are "collective rights", i.e. they can't be categorically abridged, but may be abridged per the examples in my earlier post. Everything is IMO, of course. As for those that confer individual rights, I'd say 3rd and 5th through 8th.

Interesting. Have you ever read the thoughts of the founders? Especially as regards individual rights?

Not recently, but they lived over 200 years ago and didn't expect us to have the same perspective on all things that they did. Hence, they gave us a short document, open to interpretation with the ability to move with the times. If you're implying "original intent", my belief is that it doesn't exist, as it assumes they all had the same "intent". IMO, there were "original intents" that they left for future generations to work out.

Ahhh, I see. You're an advocate of the "we can alter it to suit our mood" kind of guy. That kind of negates the idea of individual rights though doesn't it? The BoR didn't really grant anything did it? Wasn't it enumerating individual rights that were yours upon your birth? That no government could, or should be able to abridge?

 

[konradv]

Interesting. Have you ever read the thoughts of the founders? Especially as regards individual rights?

Not recently, but they lived over 200 years ago and didn't expect us to have the same perspective on all things that they did. Hence, they gave us a short document, open to interpretation with the ability to move with the times. If you're implying "original intent", my belief is that it doesn't exist, as it assumes they all had the same "intent". IMO, there were "original intents" that they left for future generations to work out.

Ahhh, I see. You're an advocate of the "we can alter it to suit our mood" kind of guy. That kind of negates the idea of individual rights though doesn't it? The BoR didn't really grant anything did it? Wasn't it enumerating individual rights that were yours upon your birth? That no government could, or should be able to abridge?

Mood? NO, I'm with Jefferson. The Constitution has to move with the TIMES.

 

[westwall]

Not recently, but they lived over 200 years ago and didn't expect us to have the same perspective on all things that they did. Hence, they gave us a short document, open to interpretation with the ability to move with the times. If you're implying "original intent", my belief is that it doesn't exist, as it assumes they all had the same "intent". IMO, there were "original intents" that they left for future generations to work out.

Ahhh, I see. You're an advocate of the "we can alter it to suit our mood" kind of guy. That kind of negates the idea of individual rights though doesn't it? The BoR didn't really grant anything did it? Wasn't it enumerating individual rights that were yours upon your birth? That no government could, or should be able to abridge?

Mood? NO, I'm with Jefferson. The Constitution has to move with the TIMES.

Really? How about sharing that quote with us. I found these....and they don't imply what you said at all.

"To preserve the republican form and principles of our Constitution and cleave to the salutary distribution of powers which that has established. These are the two sheet anchors of our Union. If driven from either, we shall be in danger of foundering." - Letter to Justice William Johnson,

"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Letter to Justice William Johnson, June 12, 1823

"At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account." - Letter to Monsieur A. Coray, October 31, 1823

Read more: Quotes by Thomas Jefferson