Militia question 1
- Thread starter CFLarsen
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 2nd amendment issues
CFLarsen said:
Completely wrong on both points. Review this thread to see why. Shanek has done a lot of work for you, so I expect you should send him a fruit basket or something this holiday season.
Besides, as you've been told before, the US Government does not grant rights. The US Consitution does not grant rights. The state of being human grants rights. It's right there in black and white, you just choose to ignore such silly American ideals as inalienable rights.
And Cynical is right on the money... get a new act, Claus. Seriously. This crap sucked when it was new.
CFLarsen said:
It appears you are having difficulty understanding or accepting that a human being has rights without someone having to put it in black and white on paper.
edited to add: Here in America, it is the government which does not have any rights or power unless it is put in black and white.
edited again to correct the first paragraph
CFLarsen said:
That is absolutely incorrect. Quite the opposite it true. We are born into a state of nature and can only surrender or limit our rights legally.
edited to add: If there is no law against something, then you are legally entitled to that right here in America by simple inference. That is the spirit behind our laws.
I'll give you an example, Claus. The sodomy laws in many of our states came about when two black men were caught performing oral sex on each other (in Tennesse, I think, sometime in the early 20th century). They were put on trial but then had to be released because it was discovered there was no law against it. And so there was a movement to make laws against it.
Kodiak
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
- Messages
- 3,279
CFLarsen said:
Amendment II --
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The second amendment is composed of two parts: the Justification clause, and the Rights clause.
Justification clause: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,"
Rights clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"The justification clause does not modify, restrict, or deny the rights clause. Justification clauses appear in many state constitutions, and cover liberties including right to trial, freedom of the press, free speech, and more. Denying gun rights based on the justification clause means we would have to deny free speech rights on the same basis." -- Eugene Volokh, Prof. Law, UCLA See http:/www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/beararms/testimon.htm
James Madison, considered to be the author of the Bill of Rights, wrote that the Bill of Rights was "calculated to secure the personal rights of the people". -- Stephen P. Halbrook, "Where Kids and Gun Do Mix", Wall Street Journal, June 2000.
"The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property: nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people: or of peaceable assemblies by them, for any purposes whatsoever, and in any number, whenever they may see occasion. -- Tucker's Blackstone, Volume 1 Appendix Note D., 1803 - Tucker's comments provide a number of rare insights into the consensus for interpretation of the Constitution that prevailed shortly after its ratification, after the debates had settled down and the Constitution was put into practice
Another example, Claus. If there is another poster on this forum I don't like, and I decide to drop clues about personal details of their life, I am free to do so as long as I don't break any forum laws. And if challenged, I don't have to defend my actions. I just have to demand someone prove I broke the law. I can get away with all kinds of behavior as long as I don't break any laws. That is because the freedom to behave that way is inferred.
Claus, it doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution that I can fart in a crowded elevator. Does that mean legally I cannot?
I suppose it could be argued that if I farted in a crowded elevator I was literally talking out of my ass and therefore protected by free speech, but that would be quite a stretch.
I suppose it could be argued that if I farted in a crowded elevator I was literally talking out of my ass and therefore protected by free speech, but that would be quite a stretch.
Kodiak
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
- Messages
- 3,279
CFLarsen said:
Nope.
I disagree with the Court's decison on the sex offender registration law, though, because I believe the Alaskan ex post facto law takes away from someone who has to register their right to privacy, and is therefore a form of punishment, and therefore in violation of the Constitution. And I HATE freaking child molestors.
But just because the Court was in error, or more precisely because I think the Court was in error, doesn't invalidate the whole system.
When the Constitution was written, we had people in slavery. And yet our whole philosophy is based on the belief that every human being is endowed with certain freedoms. The fact slavery existed doesn't invalidate that truth. It meant we were living in violation of that truth.
Was Cynical correct in that you will never answer my question on citizen's arrest and bounty hunters?
CFLarsen said:
Well, you see, Claus, in America we do believe rights come out of the blue. Does the term "state of nature" mean anything to you? The are endowed to us by our Creator, or just simply are. And if you ever tell an American their rights are given to them by the U.N., they will laugh in your face if they don't punch it first, and just might start thinking maybe those nutty right-wing militias are onto something.
All that piece of paper we call our Constitution does is protect our rights. IT. DOES. NOT. GIVE. THEM. TO. US.
I don't know how many more ways I can try to get that across.