Question for our gun enthusiast friends.

[Scut Farkus]

So basically, people will still have guns, but it will only be the people who decide to break the law.
Will the same thing happen with abortions?

goobledy goob.

 

[StoneByStone]

goobledy goob.

You raise a good point.

 

[Into the Night]

But I am still punished for both acts regardless of whether they infringe on the rights of someone else. That is why rights cannot exist in practice unless they are protected by government regardless of whether that right came from government or not. Without that protection I am being punished for expressing my opinion to another.

There is no relation to what a government punishes you for and an inherent right.

Most nations do not allow free speech so you might claim it is an inherent right that government cannot prohibit, I will be punished for expressing it. Some nations do protect that right so only in those nations is speech an actual right that I will not be punished for.

Free speech exists nowhere in the world, not even in the United States. It is also not an inherent right.

Not being punished for an action is what makes a right different than in those nations with that same right that I can be punished for.

There is no relationship to what a government may punish you for, and an inherent right. Rights to do not come from governments or constitutions.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

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.

You're now trying to split hairs; because stealing is interfering in someone else's right to keep what they have, whereas speaking takes nothing from someone else.

I humbly accept your surrender.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

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).

I truly don't care what other countries do, so attempting to equate them with the US means nothing.

 

[Scut Farkus]

with abortion a baby always dies.

 

[Into the Night]

But there is nothing to prevent that illegal act giving Congress and the president power to abuse their powers. That makes the Constitution meaningless if any branch is unlimited in its actions.

Revolt. Revolution.

You are about 100 years behind in your constitutional law

The ONLY constitution law is the constitution itself. There is no other constitutional law.

and seem completely unaware of the incorporation (nationalization process) which made most (not all) of the rights in the Bill of Rights applicable to the states.

Depends on the amendment. The 1st amendment applies only to Congress (the federal government). It does not apply to the States or to any local government.
The 2nd through 9th applies to all levels of government. The 10th applies to the federal government, and designates any powers not delegated to the federal government back to the States, or to the People if the States do not want to take it up.

This has always been so. No court changed this or can change this legally.

Therefore, rights such as free speech

That is not a right.

restrict the states as well as the federal government.

WRONG. The 1st amendment applies ONLY to the federal government. It says so, right there in the amendment.

Excessive fines and bails was just incorporated in 2019.

WRONG. It's always been there. No court changed this either.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

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.

You keep bouncing from what other countries do or don't do and trying to equate to what our constitution supports, is a fallacy.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Correct. Government cannot control you. Only YOU can control you.


Correct. You cannot control government; you can only control yourself.


Correct. You cannot control government; you can only control yourself.


Using cocaine (choosing to fuck up your body with drugs) is your right. I had a cousin who made that choice (using various drugs). Death (due to an overdose) was the consequence of her exercising her right. Operating while under the influence is not a right, however, for obvious reasons, same with abortion and child molestation. Other people's rights are being infringed upon in those cases...

Putting it simply:

FREE WILL

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Again, you are making the false equivalence. Just because you can do it does not make it an inherent right.

If you want to fuck yourself up on cocaine, that is your inherent right. Driving a car while on that stuff is not.
Abortions are taking the life of another. You do not have that as an inherent right. Inherent rights do not include taking the inherent rights from another.
Molesting is also not an inherent right for the same reason.

There is no such thing as free speech anywhere in the world. Again, you are confusing free speech with the inherent right to your own opinion and the inherent right to communicate that opinion to another.

The 1st amendment applies ONLY to Congress (the federal government).

Someone else's "freedom" stops at the next guys nose.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Rights do not come from the Constitution. It does not grant any rights, though it may discuss some of them.

Constitutions do not grant rights.

It is quite real. There are real people exercising their rights, even in the most brutal of dictatorships.

You're correct and the Constitution quantifies the idea that Government has no right to take away the rights of the citizens.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I remember when you used to distance yourself from such people. Now you embrace harassing them as a hobby! My, how you've changed! Your own confidence has improved greatly!

Sometimes it's not an increase in confidence; but instead, an increase in the knowledge that the other poster is clueless.

 

[Into the Night]

A right to an opinion is irrelevant since nobody can know what my opinion is without my communicating it.

Which is why it is an inherent right of yours to communicate it to someone else. That is not free speech.

Free speech is a legal right in the U. S.

No, it isn't. All the 1st amendment does is prevent the FEDERAL government from abridging free speech. States can do what they want.

because the federal and state governments are prohibited from abridging it although you do not seem aware of the incorporation process.

WRONG. The 1st amendment applies ONLY to the federal government. No court can change that legally. No court has the authority to change the Constitution.

The court system determines what type of speech can be restricted vs which cannot.

No, federal courts do not (legally). It has no such authority. See Article III of the Constitution of the United States. State courts have the authority granted them by their State constitutions.

Whether speech is also an inherent right is irrelevant since most humans do not consider something a right if they will be punished for it and because we often classify or describe nations partly on the basis of their civil liberties.

Inherent rights have nothing to do with governments or punishment.

According to you all nations have the inherent right of free speech

Never said any such thing. There is no right of free speech anywhere in the world. It is not an inherent right.

which makes one no different than another.

For that particular idea, that is correct.

Those that allow us to express our opinions without punishment is what makes one better than another as far as civil liberties are concerned.

You have the right to your opinion. That's an inherent right. You have the right to communicate that opinion to another. That's an inherent right. It has nothing to do with governments or constitutions.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

hahaha I remember those days as well. I found those types of people to be annoying, essentially letting them get under my skin whether I realized it or not. Now, I find interacting with them to be quite entertaining. A confidence boost for sure!

Plus they're a good distraction, when you're bored.

 

[Into the Night]

So basically, people will still have guns, but it will only be the people who decide to break the law.
Will the same thing happen with abortions?

Yes. By definition.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

But I am still punished for both acts regardless of whether they infringe on the rights of someone else. That is why rights cannot exist in practice unless they are protected by government regardless of whether that right came from government or not. Without that protection I am being punished for expressing my opinion to another.

Most nations do not allow free speech so you might claim it is an inherent right that government cannot prohibit, I will be punished for expressing it. Some nations do protect that right so only in those nations is speech an actual right that I will not be punished for.

Not being punished for an action is what makes a right different than in those nations with that same right that I can be punished for.

Don't care what other nations do; just like I don't care what someone in the next block will put up with, in front of their home.

 

[Into the Night]

You're now trying to split hairs; because stealing is interfering in someone else's right to keep what they have, whereas speaking takes nothing from someone else.

I humbly accept your surrender.

I find it amazing this simple concept seems to elude some people.

 

[Into the Night]

You keep bouncing from what other countries do or don't do and trying to equate to what our constitution supports, is a fallacy.

You are quite right. This is known as a false equivalence fallacy.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Yes, and that is because you don't have the right to avoid the consequences of your actions. This point has been made numerous times now, yet you keep reverting back to the same old '...but I'm punished...' argument.


Yes, they can. Inherent rights exist whether government chooses to recognize them or not. You are exercising one of them right now. It is the right to express your opinion. Whether or not government chooses to recognize that right, you can express your opinion. Government cannot stop you from doing that. There might be consequences for expressing your opinion, but that does not mean that the right to do so doesn't exist. Only you can control yourself.


Irrelevant. See above.


Wrong. See above.


Yes, you might face consequences for putting your right into practice. That does not mean that your right does not exist.

You have the right to tell your wife that she is a naggy old bag who can't cook. You, however, do not have the right to avoid the various potential consequences of expressing that opinion to your wife, as she also has the right to express HER opinions.


Free speech is not a right. You do have the right to your opinion, however, as well as the right to express that opinion.


Whether or not you might be punished for expressing a right does not change a right into a non-right. The right still exists regardless. Punishment is a potential consequence of expressing your inherent rights. You do not have the right to be free from consequences (such as punishment), but that does not mean that you do not have those inherent rights.

 

[Into the Night]

Plus they're a good distraction, when you're bored.

Indeed they are.