Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
We haven't established a scale or anything - but I'm definitely a big fan.
DOMA Is Unconstitutional
- Thread starter Bonestorm
- Start date
We haven't established a scale or anything - but I'm definitely a big fan.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
so no single liberty is any more important than the other?
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
Oh, dear - I sense some sort of non-sequitur, gotcha set-up thing coming. Am I correct on that? Is this going to turn into a cops-are-bad thread?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
only if you lead it that way. I'm serious though. all too often you liberals and conservatives consider some rights more important than others. Like this particular case, conservatives looked at it very obtusely saying that gays always had the same right to marry the opposite sex as straights did. Liberals, on the other hand, like to point out that since the 2nd Amendment is a particularly lethal right, that it is not as valuable as other rights. Both Liberals and Conservatives take an extremely dim view on the right to resist unlawful arrests because they see police officers as some sort of exceptionally moral and ethical guardian of our society.
so I ask again, are all liberties equally as important?
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
That's a false equivalency, in my book. You're talking about constitutional rights; I'm talking about human rights that transcend beyond that. Gay marriage isn't just a "hip" cause; it's about human dignity, and people not having to feel less than others simply because of how they were born.
To try to bring gun rights into that equation is somewhat nonsensical. I understand that you think it's an important right, but it doesn't rise to the level of basic human dignity and freedom.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
false equivalency? please explain how the most basic and fundamental right to self preservation is a false equivalency.
This fool:
You claim to favor gay rights. That's what this thread is about. Either celebrate with us or take your fucking 2nd amendment trumps all bullshit out of our fucking happy thread you fucking broken goddamn record.
Sheesh.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
fuck off and die in a fire. I addressed a point that he made about equal rights and liberties. you don't like it? leave the fucking thread, jackass.
Clearly all liberty is important, but in the fight to get as much liberty as possible... we must prioritize, some liberties are incompatible with others so we develop a balancing test and determine who has the greater claim to liberty. See Roe v. Wade for example.
IN the struggle for liberty, we constantly fight for betterment. We had woman's suffrage, then civil rights for black people, now we are working on civil rights for gay people. Its an ongoing struggle and we must fight for it as it comes. Sure I would like liberty for ALL NOW, but that is just not how social progress works.
The simple answer to your question is, no.
My right to not be shot by a crazy person with an Uzi at some point infringes upon your right to free access to an Uzi. Conflicting rights tend to get balanced out.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
where is your right to not be shot by a crazy person notated at? where in the constitution does it say that every right must be balanced with public safety?
Know what you dishonorably discharged antisocial fucking nutcase?
I'd be more than happy to use my fucking gay goddamn civil rights and go out and buy a fucking gun and blow your idiot fucking head off.
America would celebrate. Take your shit elsewhere motherfucker. It's trolls like you who give all gun owners a bad name.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
fuck off and die in a fire, twice.
The Constitution says I have a right to LIFE, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
But my right to LIBERTY (say liberty to shoot randomly in any direction) very likely will conflict with your right to Life or the Pursuit of Happiness.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
what i'm trying to understand from liberals and conservatives is where does this notion that your 'right to life' infers any power or authority of the government to provide. your 'right to life' is simply that. your right to preserve your life, meaning that you are not required to let anyone, especially the government, have power to take your life.
The founders were very big on self preservation as the ultimate natural right of living beings. they were also very big on the PEOPLE maintaining their right to preserve it from anyone who should try to take it, using lethal force and any tool available. Of course they also lived in a time where honor and respect meant something to nearly everyone. we may not have that society today, but that only means that the right to preserve and defend ones own life is even more important, not less.
So do you have a right to shoot a gun randomly into a crowd of people... if that furthers your pursuit of happiness?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
no reasonable person would believe that shooting randomly in to a crowd of people would be a right, no matter how happy it makes the shooter.
Exactly, and thus the shooters right to the pursuit of happiness is balanced by the people in the crowd's right to life.
I know that's an absurd example, but once we agree that it is a balance, the question now becomes where is the line drawn.
Often what the Supreme Court does is draw that line using a balancing test.
For example, where does the fetus's right to life outweigh the woman's right to make her own medical decisions?
Often what the Supreme Court does is draw that line using a balancing test.
For example, where does the fetus's right to life outweigh the woman's right to make her own medical decisions?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
doesn't a law against killing people satisfy that balance? whereas a law that prohibits the possession of a tool capable of that is considered prior restraint and overreach, right?