Question for our gun enthusiast friends.

[Into the Night]

Are they similar to latinos in any way?

??

 

[Into the Night]

It seems to me that Dumber wants to overthrow the USA and make it into an Oligarchy. Unfortunately for him, he will have to pry my guns away from my cold dead hands.

I don't think he fully realizes that.

 

[Into the Night]

See ya, troll.

Another one of your meaningless buzzwords. You don't even know what an internet troll is.

 

[domer76]

Buh bye bitch. Talking to your two personas.

 

[Flash]

They really can't. Your opinion is your own. You decision to make your opinion known to others is your own. No government can stop that.

You can take the view that this right comes from God, but no god or gods need be involved. The right is inherent, simply because you have a mind, an opinion, and the ability to speak to another about it (even behind closed doors if you have to).

When government punishes you for speech they didn't stop that speech, but it sure is going to limit it. If you have to speak to others behind closed doors you do not have free speech.

How do we know which rights are inherent?

 

[Flash]

A constitution IS a law. It is THE law of the land. It does not provide rights, though it may discuss and protect them. It is no guarantee either, for a constitution cannot even guarantee itself.

There is a big difference between constitutional law and statutory law. Congress can repeal a statute or it can be declared unconstitutional. Nothing in the Constitution can be repealed (without an amendment) and cannot be unconstitutional.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Government can take away your freedom to speak freely.

So, we have a natural right given us by God but only a small percentage of people for a very limited historical period actually have been able to exercise that right. Seems like more of a pretend right for most people.

No they can't.

They may punish someone for doing so; but that doesn't mean that a person can't, they just have to be willing to accept the consequences.

 

[Into the Night]

When government punishes you for speech they didn't stop that speech, but it sure is going to limit it. If you have to speak to others behind closed doors you do not have free speech.

How do we know which rights are inherent?

No government can stop you from having an opinion. No government can stop you from communicating that opinion to someone else.

 

[Into the Night]

There is a big difference between constitutional law and statutory law. Congress can repeal a statute or it can be declared unconstitutional. Nothing in the Constitution can be repealed (without an amendment) and cannot be unconstitutional.

It can be discarded. The incoming government would then rule by oligarchy or dictatorship. Most likely a fascist regime as it moves into communism.

As long as the Constitution stands, it IS the law.

 

[CFM]

He said we have the right of speech, etc. because government cannot stop those activities. Neither can it stop crimes.

That's an answer to a question that wasn't asked.

 

[gfm7175]

See ya, troll.

I sincerely doubt that. You'll be back...

 

[gfm7175]

??

I was poking fun at your mistype ("natinos" instead of "nations")

 

[gfm7175]

Buh bye bitch. Talking to your two personas.

You've said this HOW many times now?? Yet, here you are...

 

[Scut Farkus]

If banning guns is pointless because people can just get guns on the black market, is banning abortion also pointless?

you're not understanding the point. the objection to making guns illegal is that generally law abiding people, the ones who you want to have guns who would use them for good defensive purposes, will not have them. only criminals with nefarious intent will have them.

 

[Flash]

No they can't.

They may punish someone for doing so; but that doesn't mean that a person can't, they just have to be willing to accept the consequences.

Then we need to modify that right. We have the right to free speech if we are willing to be punished for said speech. Not many people would consider that a right.

I have the freedom to steal (although it is not a right) if I am willing to be punished for said act.

That makes my right to free speech no different than my freedom to steal except in abstract terms. They are no different in practice.

 

[Flash]

That's an answer to a question that wasn't asked.

It is a question you asked. You always forget stuff you posted.

 

[Flash]

It can be discarded. The incoming government would then rule by oligarchy or dictatorship. Most likely a fascist regime as it moves into communism.

As long as the Constitution stands, it IS the law.

But the law it provides is very different than statutory law. The Constitution grants the government power to make laws and puts limits on those powers. There are not many actual "laws" in the Constitution. It tells government what it can and cannot do.

The 1st Amendment prohibition against abridging free speech is not a law. Our laws regarding what speech can be punished come from our legislative bodies. The Constitution does not specify threats, slander, fighting words, and obscenity may be restricted. Legislative bodies passed laws restricting different types of speech and the courts interpreted the Constitution to tell us what speech can be restricted and what cannot. Those were judicial interpretations not specifically contained in the amendment itself.

 

[Flash]

No government can stop you from having an opinion. No government can stop you from communicating that opinion to someone else.

And government cannot stop me from using cocaine, having an abortion, or molesting children. But they can punish me for those acts just as they can punish me for communicating an opinion to someone else (in a country without free speech protections).

 

[Flash]

No they can't.

They may punish someone for doing so; but that doesn't mean that a person can't, they just have to be willing to accept the consequences.

The concept of rights under the Constitution means government cannot prohibit that action. Therefore, if I am punished for an action I did not have the constitutional right to do so. I may have had some vague "natural right" to do it, but only in some abstract sense that makes no difference in the reality.

 

[gfm7175]

Then we need to modify that right. We have the right to free speech if we are willing to be punished for said speech. Not many people would consider that a right.

Speaking your opinion is a right. Nobody can take that right away from you. Speech without consequence is NOT a right, however. You can only control yourself; you cannot control other people.

I have the freedom to steal

Yup, you can choose to steal things.

(although it is not a right)

Correct. Your stealing is an infringement upon someone else's right to their property.

if I am willing to be punished for said act.

That is the consequences of your actions.

That makes my right to free speech no different than my freedom to steal except in abstract terms. They are no different in practice.

They ARE different in practice, actually.

Voicing your opinion does not infringe upon anyone else's rights. It is a right inherent in mankind simply because they exist. Nobody except for you can control what you choose to say. Stealing, however, DOES infringe upon someone else's right to their property.