Militia question 1

[Luke T.]

One more try.

"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Doesn't say we "have a right to bear arms" or "are allowed to bear arms".

 

[CFLarsen]

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.

Luke, now you are arguing that you are right, because you think the courts are wrong. We are not talking about your opinion, but on what is legal.

Was Cynical correct in that you will never answer my question on citizen's arrest and bounty hunters?

I did.

 

[CFLarsen]

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

That is not a very viable argument here...

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.

Interesting attitude. Is that why (some) Americans think they are above everybody else?

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.

And I don't know how many more ways I can try to get it across that I am talking about what is legal. Not what your Creator endowed you with.

You really want to make that argument, here, of all places? That you are right, because God said so?

 

[Luke T.]

Look how our rights are handled throughout the Bill of Rights, Claus.

The first amendment:

"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. "

The fourth amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

Notice the similarity between saying a right can't be "abridged" or "infringed" or "violated" ? This is in observance of the fact we have full rights before pen is put to paper and the discussion is about how much we can or cannot limit them.

The sixth amendment:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial..."

The seventh amendment:

"...the right of trial by jury shall be preserved..."

Our rights are to be enjoyed and preserved. How can you preserve something unless it is pre-existing?

But the granddaddy of all evidence of what the hell I've been saying all this time is the ninth amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. "

 

[Luke T.]

That is not a very viable argument here...

"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"

Interesting attitude. Is that why (some) Americans think they are above everybody else?

Nope. It looks to me like "everybody else" are holding themselves beneath.

And I don't know how many more ways I can try to get it across that I am talking about what is legal. Not what your Creator endowed you with.

You really want to make that argument, here, of all places? That you are right, because God said so?

So the term "state of nature" is unfamiliar to you, I take it.

Oy.

One of the greater influences on our American founding fathers was John Locke.

In The Second Treatise of Government, John Locke states his belief that all men exist in "a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and person as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man. " (Locke 4) Locke believes that man exists in a state of nature and thus exists in a state of uncontrollable liberty which has only the law of nature to restrict it, which is reason. (Locke 5) However Locke does state that man does not have the license to destroy himself or any other creature in his possession unless a legitimate purpose requires it. Locke emphasizes the ability and opportunity to own and profit from property as being necessary to be free.

http://www.essaysample.com/essay/001622.html

 

[CFLarsen]

"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"

BEEP! You lose by default, Luke. You can't use a divine argument here.

Nope. It looks to me like "everybody else" are holding themselves beneath.

Careful, now. You are one step away from Ãœbermensch mentality.

So the term "state of nature" is unfamiliar to you, I take it.

You have a right, because God gave it to you? Is that what this boils down to?

Oy.

Oy indeed.

One of the greater influences on our American founding fathers was John Locke.

I don't give a ◊◊◊◊ about influences.

God did it, hm? Gee, I can't argue with that...

 

[CFLarsen]

"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"

Let's keep this in mind, shall we?

If we are to accept that these rights are endowed us by our Creator, then what prevents us from accepting divine (that is: supernatural) evidence?

Why should we accept that these rights come from a supernatural power, if we dismiss Sylvia Browne's claims that she also heals by using supernatural powers?

If we are to accept that these rights are not endowed us by our Creator, when can we interpret a text, and when should we take it literally?

When it suits the point we are trying to make?

Consistency, gentlemen.

 

[Kodiak]

Interesting attitude. Is that why (some) Americans think they are above everybody else?

It's simple. When it comes to the United States, it's people, it's government, it's Constitution, and it's sovereignty, an American citizen is above any non-citizen.

50-60 years ago, the U.N. served a valid purpose, but today the U.N. is corrupt, inept, impotent, and useless, except for it's charitable and humanitarian sections.

 

[Tony]

If we are to accept that these rights are endowed us by our Creator, then what prevents us from accepting divine (that is: supernatural) evidence?[/B]

This is a non sequitur, just because something says "creator" doesn't mean it's divine.

 

[Kodiak]

Claus,

Care to address any of the citations (Madison and Blackstone) or the article I linked on page 6 of this thread?

 

[CFLarsen]

It's simple. When it comes to the United States, it's people, it's government, it's Constitution, and it's sovereignty, an American citizen is above any non-citizen.

But it isn't merely within the US that this applies. US soldiers cannot be tried for war crimes. Since it isn't incomprehensible that US soldiers commit war crimes, should they go free, simply because they are Americans?

50-60 years ago, the U.N. served a valid purpose, but today the U.N. is corrupt, inept, impotent, and useless, except for it's charitable and humanitarian sections.

Why is that?

 

[Kodiak]

The Origin and Character of the Rights of Man

 

[CFLarsen]

This is a non sequitur, just because something says "creator" doesn't mean it's divine.

What else could it mean??

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus,

Care to address any of the citations (Madison and Blackstone) or the article I linked on page 6 of this thread?

What's to address?

 

[Kodiak]

But it isn't merely within the US that this applies. US soldiers cannot be tried for war crimes. Since it isn't incomprehensible that US soldiers commit war crimes, should they go free, simply because they are Americans?

Apples and oranges, Claus... Who said US soldiers cannot be tried for war crimes?!? Besides the fact that we excel at policing ourselves, whatever agreements we make or do not make with international courts is for our duly elected representatives and their appointed ambassadors to determine, as laid out by our Constitution.

But why the obfuscation? We are talking about the Constitution and specifically the 2nd Amendment, aren't we?

Why is that?

21st century audio and visual communication and modern transcontinental air travel.

 

[Tony]

What else could it mean??

It could mean the earth or nature. Whether there is a god or not, we still have a creator.

 

[Kodiak]

What's to address?

So you agree that the justification clause has no effect on the rights clause, and do not challenge that the 2nd amendment was clearly intented by the founding fathers to protect the individual right to firearm possession as expressed by Madison and Tucker's Blackstone?

You also agree with the experts noted in the article I linked where even anti-gun advocates concede the 2nd Amendment's protection of an individual right?

Great! Thread's over...

 

[CFLarsen]

Apples and oranges, Claus... Who said US soldiers cannot be tried for war crimes?!?

US demands war crimes immunity

The US is seeking to renew the immunity from prosecution enjoyed by American peacekeepers, with a resolution before the UN Security Council.

Washington negotiated special dispensation when the International Criminal Court came into being two years ago, arguing that as the world's only superpower, it might be subject to spurious or malicious prosecutions.

The US secured the UN's agreement by threatening to veto all its peacekeeping operations.

The exemption - which gives US soldiers immunity from international prosecution when serving on UN-backed missions - was passed in 2002 on an annual-renewal basis.

That's what you normally call "blackmail".

Besides the fact that we excel at policing ourselves, whatever agreements we make or do not make with international courts is for our duly elected representatives and their appointed ambassadors to determine, as laid out by our Constitution.

You "excel" at policing yourselves? You really believe that Americans are superior, then?

But why the obfuscation? We are talking about the Constitution and specifically the 2nd Amendment, aren't we?

No obfuscation. If you can talk about the UN, so can I.

21st century audio and visual communication and modern transcontinental air travel.

Huh??? Please explain.

 

[CFLarsen]

So you agree that the justification clause has no effect on the rights clause, and do not challenge that the 2nd amendment was clearly intented by the founding fathers to protect the individual right to firearm possession as expressed by Madison and Tucker's Blackstone?

You also agree with the experts noted in the article I linked where even anti-gun advocates concede the 2nd Amendment's protection of an individual right?

Non-committal is not agreement.

 

[shanek]

The 2nd Amendment is the only legal document that mentions the right to bear arms.

The idea that rights are yours from birth has nothing to do with the legality of the right.

What does the 9th Amendment say, Claus (in your own words)?

What does the 10th (again, in your own words)?