Religions > Atheism > Natural Rights Dictated By Gods For Superstitious Nitwits Like David Moffitt
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"The Lone Weasel" |
| Date: |
05 Mar 2006 01:13:29 AM |
| Object: |
Natural Rights Dictated By Gods For Superstitious Nitwits Like David Moffitt |
[begin excerpt]
Enactment in national and international law is one of the ways in which
human rights exist. But many have suggested that this is not the only way.
If human rights exist only because of enactment, their availability is
contingent on domestic and international political developments. Many
people have sought to find a way to support the idea that human rights have
roots that are deeper and less subject to human decisions than legal
enactment. One version of this idea is that people are born with rights,
that human rights are somehow innate or inherent in human beings. One way
that a normative status could be inherent in humans is by being God-given.
The US Declaration of Independence (1776) claims that people are "endowed
by their Creator" with natural rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness." On this view, God is the supreme lawmaker and enacted some
basic human rights.
Rights plausibly attributed to divine decree must be very general and
abstract (life, liberty, etc.) so that they can apply to thousands of years
of human history, not just to recent centuries. But contemporary human
rights are more numerous and specific (the right to a fair trial, the right
to freedom of religion, the right to equality before the law, etc.) Even if
people are born with God-given natural rights, we need to explain how we
get from those general and abstract rights to the specific rights found in
contemporary declarations and treaties. Attributing human rights to God's
commands may give them a secure status at the metaphysical level, but in a
very diverse world it does not in fact make them practically secure.
Billions of people do not believe in the God found in Christianity, Islam,
and Judaism. If people do not believe in God, or in the sort of god that
prescribes rights, then if you want to base human rights on theological
beliefs you must persuade these people of a rights-supporting theological
view, which is likely to be even harder than persuading them of human
rights. Legal enactment at the national and international levels provides a
far more secure status for practical purposes.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-human/#1
[end excerpt]
I think the reason gunloons hang on to pretensions of natural rights is
simply because natural rights theory has been discounted for good reasons
for a long time, and they need fuzzy, feel-good slogan-oriented horseshit
to justify their gun obsessions to others. It's just like religion because
natural rights are dictated by gods, and there's no secular way to have
nature "assign" natural rights to a state power that makes and enforces
laws, including weapons laws.
I think if you want to assert natural rights as an excuse to play with
guns, fine; but don't pretend you have god-granted rights to play with
guns, because that violates the establishment clause from the First
Amendment, and if you have to tear down the US Constitution to justify
supernatural gun rights you get in church, all I can say is GET DOWN,
CLOWN!
So the notion that gun rights flow from gods is just nuts, and your only
supporting evidence is your personal belief, which, because you're a big
liar, is not persuasive.
Your turn, Muppet.
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
.
|
|
| User: "Bird Dog" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural Rights Dictated By Gods For Superstitious Nitwits Like David Moffitt |
05 Mar 2006 12:35:42 PM |
|
|
"The Lone Weasel" <loneweasel@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns977DC7794F38loneweaselgmailcom@204.153.244.170...
I think the reason gunloons hang on to pretensions of natural rights is
simply because natural rights theory has been discounted for good reasons
for a long time, and they need fuzzy, feel-good slogan-oriented horseshit
to justify their gun obsessions to others. It's just like religion
because
natural rights are dictated by gods, and there's no secular way to have
nature "assign" natural rights to a state power that makes and enforces
laws, including weapons laws.
I think if you want to assert natural rights as an excuse to play with
guns, fine; but don't pretend you have god-granted rights to play with
guns, because that violates the establishment clause from the First
Amendment, and if you have to tear down the US Constitution to justify
supernatural gun rights you get in church, all I can say is GET DOWN,
CLOWN!
So the notion that gun rights flow from gods is just nuts, and your only
supporting evidence is your personal belief, which, because you're a big
liar, is not persuasive.
Your turn, Muppet.
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
To begin with your first sentence, what you think is of no concern to
anyone. I would have thought that this whole argument was resolved long ago.
At any rate, "natural" law does not even come into play at this time. The
question of personal gun ownership is not mentioned in the body of the
Constitution. Since the Constitution grants the gov't. certain limited
powers as enumerated, and all others to the states or people, the feds.
could not interfere with gun ownership one way or another as written. At the
time of ratification, the states were concerned that if certain rights were
not specifically spelled out, that the feds. would infringe on the
provisions and claim jurisdiction illegally (and boy, were they right).
Without the BOR, the Constitution would not have been ratified.
Natural law comes into play only in that it is the basis for written law.
There are, of course, certain natural laws that are observed, without having
to be written into law. To stretch the point, we have the natural right to
breathe. To the point that someone grabs you by the throat and prevents you
from breathing, then we constructed a written law to provide protection
against your natural law being violated.
I guess we need nuts like the Weasel, to keep us aware that there actually
are people out there who keep whipping this dead horse. They are the ones
who sent the people to Washington that have killed the 9th and 10th
Amendments.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Lone Weasel" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural Rights Dictated By Gods For Superstitious Nitwits Like David Moffitt |
05 Mar 2006 01:19:10 PM |
|
|
"Bird Dog" <horse@AOL.com> said:
"The Lone Weasel" <loneweasel@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns977DC7794F38loneweaselgmailcom@204.153.244.170...
I think the reason gunloons hang on to pretensions of natural rights
is simply because natural rights theory has been discounted for good
reasons for a long time, and they need fuzzy, feel-good
slogan-oriented horseshit to justify their gun obsessions to others.
It's just like religion because
natural rights are dictated by gods, and there's no secular way to
have nature "assign" natural rights to a state power that makes and
enforces laws, including weapons laws.
I think if you want to assert natural rights as an excuse to play
with guns, fine; but don't pretend you have god-granted rights to
play with guns, because that violates the establishment clause from
the First Amendment, and if you have to tear down the US Constitution
to justify supernatural gun rights you get in church, all I can say
is GET DOWN, CLOWN!
So the notion that gun rights flow from gods is just nuts, and your
only supporting evidence is your personal belief, which, because
you're a big liar, is not persuasive.
Your turn, Muppet.
To begin with your first sentence, what you think is of no concern to
anyone.
Then it's no concern of yours, eh Turd Hog?
Point proven.
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "¿mÿ§t뮦@n?" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural Rights Dictated By Gods For Superstitious Nitwits Like David Moffitt |
05 Mar 2006 07:04:20 AM |
|
|
In talk.politics.guns The Lone Weasel <loneweasel@gmail.com> wrote:
[begin excerpt]
Enactment in national and international law is one of the ways in which
human rights exist.
Gee, you could even get through the first sentence without fucking up,
Jabba.
Human rights don't exist because of law. I'd think a grossly fat,
whining liberal like you would know that.
_____________________________________________________
"Still with your immature personal attacks, Dufus?"
-Kurt Harrington-Lochner, showing us why
he's still the master of hypocrisy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny Bravo" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural Rights Dictated By Gods For Superstitious Nitwits Like David Moffitt |
05 Mar 2006 02:18:09 PM |
|
|
On 05 Mar 2006 07:13:29 GMT, The Lone Weasel <loneweasel@gmail.com> wrote:
[begin excerpt]
Enactment in national and international law is one of the ways in which
human rights exist.
Wrong from the first sentence, not that I'm surprised.
Laws don't cause rights to exist, they can protect those rights from those
willing to follow the law, that's about it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Lone Weasel" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural Rights Dictated By Gods For Superstitious Nitwits Like David Moffitt |
05 Mar 2006 03:46:00 PM |
|
|
Johnny Bravo <baawa_knight@yahoo.com> said:
On 05 Mar 2006 07:13:29 GMT, The Lone Weasel <loneweasel@gmail.com>
wrote:
Enactment in national and international law is one of the ways in
which human rights exist.
Wrong from the first sentence, not that I'm surprised.
Laws don't cause rights to exist,
Yes they do. Those are your real, verifiable rights. You can defend
them in a court of law.
Your natural rights are the rights you have in heaven. But they don't
allow guns in heaven, that's just my opinion...
they can protect those rights from
those willing to follow the law, that's about it.
No, our human rights are enforced by punishing those who infringe on
them.
Your natural rights are enforced by anybody because you're not living in
a state of nature anymore. Return to a state of nature and claim your
natural rights, Blobbo.
Unfortunately for you, the USA is already a civil society like nearly
everyplace else on Earth.
Read John Locke, Blackstone, eg:
[begin excerpt]
THE abƒolute rights of man, conƒidered as a free agent, endowed
with diƒcernment to knowe good from evil, and with power of
chooƒing thoƒe meaƒures which appear to him to be moƒt deƒirable,
are uƒually ƒumed up on one general appellation, and denominated
the natural liberty of mankind. This natural liberty conƒiƒts
properly in a power of acting as one thinks fit, without any
reƒtraint or control, unleƒs by the law of nature : being a right
inherent in us by birth, and one of the gifts of God to man at
his creation, when he endued him with the faculty of freewill.
But every man, when he enters into ƒociety, gives up a part of
his natural liberty, as the price of ƒo valuable a purchaƒe ;
and, in conƒideration of receiving the advantages of mutual
commerce, obliges himƒelf to conform to thoƒe laws, which the
community has tought proper to eƒtabliƒh. And this ƒpecies of
legal obedience and conformity is infinitely more deƒirable, than
that wild and ƒavage liberty which is ƒacrificed to obtain it.
for no man, that conƒiders a moment, would wiƒh to retain the
abƒolute and uncontrolled power of doing whatever he pleaƒes; the
conƒequence of which is, that every other man would alƒo have the
ƒame power ; and then there would be no ƒecurity to individuals
in any of the enjoyments of life.
Political therefore, or civil, liberty, which is that of a member
of ƒociety, is no other than natural liberty ƒo far reƒtrained by
human laws (and no farther) as is neceƒƒary and expedient for the
general advantage of the publick. Hence we may collect that the
law, which reƒtrains a man from doing miƒchief to his fellow
citizens, though it diminiƒhes the natural, increaƒes the civil
liberty of mankind : but every wanton and cauƒeleƒs reƒtraint of
the will of the ƒubject, whether practiced by a monarch, a
nobility, or a popular aƒƒembly, is a degree of tyranny.
Nay, that even laws themƒelves, whether made with or without our
conƒent, if they regulate and conƒtrain our conduct in matters of
mere indifference, without any good end in view, are laws
deƒtructive of liberty : whereas if any public advantage can
ariƒe from obƒerving ƒuch precepts, the control of our private
inclinations, in one or two particular points, will conduce to
preƒerve our general freedom in others of more importance ; by
ƒupporting that ƒtate, of ƒociety, which alone can ƒecure our
independence.
Thus the ƒtatute of king Edward IV d, which forbad the fine
gentlemen of thoƒe times (under the degree of a lord) to wear
pikes upon their ƒhoes or boots of more than two inches in
length, was a law that favoured of oppreƒƒion ; becauƒe, however
ridiculous the faƒhion then in uƒe might appear, the reƒtraining
it by pecuniary penalties could ƒerve no purpoƒe of common
utility. But the ƒtatute of king Charles II, which preƒcribes a
thing ƒeemingly as indifferent ; viz. a dreƒs for the dead, who
are all ordered to be buried in woollen; is a law conƒiƒtent with
public liberty, for it encourages the ƒtaple trade, on which in
great meaƒure depends the univerƒal good of the nation. So that
laws, wen prudently framed, are by no means ƒubverƒive but rather
introductive of liberty ; for (as Mr Locke has well obƒerved)
where there is no law, there is no freedom.
But then, on the other hand, that conƒtitution or frame of
government, that ƒyƒtem of laws, is alone calculated to maintain
civil liberty, which leaves the ƒubject entire maƒter of his own
conduct, except in thoƒe points wherein the public good requires
ƒome direction or reƒtraint.
BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND. BOOK THE
FIRST. OF THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS. CHAPTER THE FIRST. OF THE
ABSOLUTE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/bk1ch1.htm
[end excerpt]
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural Rights Dictated By Gods For Superstitious Nitwits Like David Moffitt |
05 Mar 2006 04:01:21 PM |
|
|
"The Lone Weasel" <loneweasel@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns977DA06547140loneweaselgmailcom@204.153.244.170...
Johnny Bravo <baawa_knight@yahoo.com> said:
On 05 Mar 2006 07:13:29 GMT, The Lone Weasel <loneweasel@gmail.com>
wrote:
Enactment in national and international law is one of the ways in
which human rights exist.
Wrong from the first sentence, not that I'm surprised.
Laws don't cause rights to exist,
Yes they do. Those are your real, verifiable rights. You can defend
them in a court of law.
Ah, so unless you can defend them in court you don't have rights......I
acknowledge your assertion that in 1939 German Jews had no rights.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Lone Weasel" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural Rights Dictated By Gods For Superstitious Nitwits Like David Moffitt |
05 Mar 2006 05:41:43 PM |
|
|
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said:
"The Lone Weasel" <loneweasel@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns977DA06547140loneweaselgmailcom@204.153.244.170...
Johnny Bravo <baawa_knight@yahoo.com> said:
On 05 Mar 2006 07:13:29 GMT, The Lone Weasel <loneweasel@gmail.com>
wrote:
Enactment in national and international law is one of the ways in
which human rights exist.
Wrong from the first sentence, not that I'm surprised.
Laws don't cause rights to exist,
Yes they do. Those are your real, verifiable rights. You can defend
them in a court of law.
Ah, so unless you can defend them in court you don't have rights......
No; unless your rights are recognized by law they're indefensible. If
Snout believes he has a natural right to wear dynamite vests with live
detonators in public, or anywhere, he'll be very suprised when the court
refuses to recognize his insane belief. Even though some people in the
world do believe they have a right to wear dynamite vests, if Snout lives
in the United States he can believe whatever he wants, but he does not
have a right to wear dynamite, especially with the live detonator
clenched in his hot little hand.
Surely you can understand that, right Snout?
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural Rights Dictated By Gods For Superstitious Nitwits Like David Moffitt |
05 Mar 2006 07:29:15 PM |
|
|
"The Lone Weasel" <loneweasel@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns977DB40468F05loneweaselgmailcom@204.153.244.170...
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said:
"The Lone Weasel" <loneweasel@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns977DA06547140loneweaselgmailcom@204.153.244.170...
Johnny Bravo <baawa_knight@yahoo.com> said:
On 05 Mar 2006 07:13:29 GMT, The Lone Weasel <loneweasel@gmail.com>
wrote:
Enactment in national and international law is one of the ways in
which human rights exist.
Wrong from the first sentence, not that I'm surprised.
Laws don't cause rights to exist,
Yes they do. Those are your real, verifiable rights. You can defend
them in a court of law.
Ah, so unless you can defend them in court you don't have rights......
No;
Ah, so your backpedal has begun.
unless your rights are recognized by law they're indefensible.
So if the law in Germany in 1939 didn't recognize the rights of Jews, then
the Jews had no rights to defend......
I predict yet another backpedal from Lee.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Lone Weasel" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural Rights Dictated By Gods For Superstitious Nitwits Like David Moffitt |
06 Mar 2006 11:20:18 AM |
|
|
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said:
"The Lone Weasel" <loneweasel@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns977DB40468F05loneweaselgmailcom@204.153.244.170...
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said:
"The Lone Weasel" <loneweasel@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns977DA06547140loneweaselgmailcom@204.153.244.170...
Johnny Bravo <baawa_knight@yahoo.com> said:
On 05 Mar 2006 07:13:29 GMT, The Lone Weasel
<loneweasel@gmail.com> wrote:
Enactment in national and international law is one of the ways in
which human rights exist.
Wrong from the first sentence, not that I'm surprised.
Laws don't cause rights to exist,
Yes they do. Those are your real, verifiable rights. You can
defend them in a court of law.
Ah, so unless you can defend them in court you don't have
rights......
No;
Ah, so your backpedal has begun.
unless your rights are recognized by law they're indefensible.
So if the law in Germany in 1939 didn't recognize the rights of Jews,
then the Jews had no rights to defend......
Well Snout, did German law formally deny Jews the same rights other
Germans enjoyed? Or were the rights of all Germans simply ignored?
You'll have to provide good citations for your answer or I'll just ignore
it.
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural Rights Dictated By Gods For Superstitious Nitwits Like David Moffitt |
06 Mar 2006 05:15:13 PM |
|
|
"The Lone Weasel" <loneweasel@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns977E735915DA5loneweaselgmailcom@204.153.244.170...
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said:
"The Lone Weasel" <loneweasel@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns977DB40468F05loneweaselgmailcom@204.153.244.170...
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said:
"The Lone Weasel" <loneweasel@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns977DA06547140loneweaselgmailcom@204.153.244.170...
Johnny Bravo <baawa_knight@yahoo.com> said:
On 05 Mar 2006 07:13:29 GMT, The Lone Weasel
<loneweasel@gmail.com> wrote:
Enactment in national and international law is one of the ways in
which human rights exist.
Wrong from the first sentence, not that I'm surprised.
Laws don't cause rights to exist,
Yes they do. Those are your real, verifiable rights. You can
defend them in a court of law.
Ah, so unless you can defend them in court you don't have
rights......
No;
Ah, so your backpedal has begun.
unless your rights are recognized by law they're indefensible.
So if the law in Germany in 1939 didn't recognize the rights of Jews,
then the Jews had no rights to defend......
Well Snout, did German law formally deny Jews the same rights other
Germans enjoyed? Or were the rights of all Germans simply ignored?
Yep, because Jews could defend their rights in court. Hence according to
YOUR assertion they didn't have rights. Other Germans COULD defend their
rights in court and hence did have rights according to you.
By your standards and assertions you felt that at that time and place Jews
didn't have rights, and thus killing them wasn't a violation of their rights
since they had none.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Morton" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural Rights Dictated By Gods For Superstitious Nitwits Like David Moffitt |
06 Mar 2006 05:39:37 PM |
|
|
In article <TpKdnVX1MrEZX5HZnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@adelphia.com>, Scout says...
Well Snout, did German law formally deny Jews the same rights other
Germans enjoyed? Or were the rights of all Germans simply ignored?
Yep, because Jews could defend their rights in court. Hence according to
YOUR assertion they didn't have rights. Other Germans COULD defend their
rights in court and hence did have rights according to you.
Presumably you meant "COULDN'T".
Lee Harrison has now descended into the cesspool of Holocaust denial with Judy
Diarya/Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend.
--
--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with 210lb.
rapists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural Rights Dictated By Gods For Superstitious Nitwits Like David Moffitt |
06 Mar 2006 06:09:57 PM |
|
|
"Chris Morton" <cmorton@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:duih7p02u6v@drn.newsguy.com...
In article <TpKdnVX1MrEZX5HZnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@adelphia.com>, Scout says...
Well Snout, did German law formally deny Jews the same rights other
Germans enjoyed? Or were the rights of all Germans simply ignored?
Yep, because Jews could defend their rights in court. Hence according to
YOUR assertion they didn't have rights. Other Germans COULD defend their
rights in court and hence did have rights according to you.
Presumably you meant "COULDN'T".
Absolutely.
Lee Harrison has now descended into the cesspool of Holocaust denial with
Judy
Diarya/Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend.
Yep, it's always interesting to apply their denial of rights, and then watch
as they bury themselves under what such denial can, has and could mean.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Morton" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural Rights Dictated By Gods For Superstitious Nitwits Like David Moffitt |
06 Mar 2006 11:48:21 AM |
|
|
In article <Xns977E735915DA5loneweaselgmailcom@204.153.244.170>, The Lone Weasel
says...
Well Snout, did German law formally deny Jews the same rights other
Germans enjoyed? Or were the rights of all Germans simply ignored?
You know what the "Nuremberg Laws" were, you Jew hating piece of *****.
--
--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with 210lb.
rapists.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "0:-" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural Rights Dictated By Gods For Superstitious Nitwits Like David Moffitt |
05 Mar 2006 07:29:14 PM |
|
|
The Lone Weasel wrote:
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said:
"The Lone Weasel" <loneweasel@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns977DA06547140loneweaselgmailcom@204.153.244.170...
Johnny Bravo <baawa_knight@yahoo.com> said:
On 05 Mar 2006 07:13:29 GMT, The Lone Weasel <loneweasel@gmail.com>
wrote:
Enactment in national and international law is one of the ways in
which human rights exist.
Wrong from the first sentence, not that I'm surprised.
Laws don't cause rights to exist,
Yes they do. Those are your real, verifiable rights. You can defend
them in a court of law.
Ah, so unless you can defend them in court you don't have rights......
No; unless your rights are recognized by law they're indefensible.
No, I can defend them without the law. The law is an artifact of
society. In fact, it is an artifact of nature, since we natural being
create it. There are numerous ways to defend my rights.
If
Snout believes he has a natural right to wear dynamite vests with live
detonators in public, or anywhere, he'll be very suprised when the court
refuses to recognize his insane belief.
You still mistake a right for the capacity to act upon it. He has the
"right" to do as you describe, just as you do to post here. And you use
"belief" incorrectly. The court won't "recognize" anything in
particular. They will simply deny him the right to act.
The problem for you, Lee, is that we determine between us what "rights"
we may exercise to what degree.
In fact if I dreampt up a new "right" once again my fellows would be
likely to tell me the limits they wish to impose upon it. That does not
negate it's existence.
In fact your arguments as per gun law prove my point. My fellows have
the right to attempt to deny me certain actions pertaining.
I have the right to fight back. The bottom line between us, you and I,
is survival...continuation. You say, parenthetically, that some of the
things we wish to do threaten you. We disagree. We have proven you
wrong, and you have failed to prove yourself right. Our political power
is greater than yours.
In other words, you lose. Exactly the opposite of what you keep
foolishly claiming. I get to carry. You don't like it. Tough *****.
Even though some people in the
world do believe they have a right to wear dynamite vests, if Snout lives
in the United States he can believe whatever he wants, but he does not
have a right to wear dynamite, especially with the live detonator
clenched in his hot little hand.
Everyone has the right to do whatever they wish to. The question is,
what do we agree as a society one CAN do, to what degree. If someone
wishes to wear such a vest and use it for suicide, all by himself, no
one can, and probably should, stop him.
We simply won't let him do it in crowd if we can stop him.
Surely you can understand that, right Snout?
I'm sure he understands you are locking into your fundamentalist
thinking, have no understanding or tolerance for paradox.
The paradox you can't handle is created by you.
That is this: you think that rights are created by man. Nature says you
are full of *****.
We are totally free.
We are also totally free to attempt to limit others.
Some places on the planet that is applied to disarm people. They often
cease to exist by allowing that to happen to them.
We have held off the sick minded, such as you, pretty successfully here
in the US.
And as you can see by recent history, gradually we are taking over the
execution of our right to keep arms for defense.
Again, if you look closely, you lose.
It become easier to own and to carry in this country. I suspect in
time, even moreso. And around the world, given enought time and
exposure to reality, it will come to other people the same way.
I have a hunch the people in the British Commonwealth will be next ones
to overthrow the enemies of nature. YOU, and those like you.
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel..
,,,the loser.
Sorry about you, Lee. But you are redundant as well as decadent. And
feeble.
We are taking back the execution of our rights.
0:->
.
|
|
|
| User: "Magus" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural Rights Dictated By Gods For Superstitious Nitwits LikeDavid Moffitt |
05 Mar 2006 07:45:35 PM |
|
|
0:-> wrote:
The Lone Weasel wrote:
<snip>
Even though some people in the
world do believe they have a right to wear dynamite vests, if Snout lives
in the United States he can believe whatever he wants, but he does not
have a right to wear dynamite, especially with the live detonator
clenched in his hot little hand.
Everyone has the right to do whatever they wish to. The question is,
what do we agree as a society one CAN do, to what degree. If someone
wishes to wear such a vest and use it for suicide, all by himself, no
one can, and probably should, stop him.
<snip>
0:->
Old Tom had a lot to say on the matter:
"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it
is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is
unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us
by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the
law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it
violates the right of an individual." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H.
Tiffany, 1819.
"A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of
nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." --Thomas
Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:209, Papers 1:134
"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into
the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of
moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal
liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for
his own sustenance." --Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770. FE 1:376
"The evidence of [the] natural right [of expatriation], like that of our
right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of
happiness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical investigations of
reason, but is impressed on the sense of every man. We do not claim
these under the charters of kings or legislators..." --Thomas Jefferson
to John Manners, 1817. ME 15:124
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Evan" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural Rights Dictated By Gods For Superstitious Nitwits LikeDavid Moffitt |
05 Mar 2006 06:22:45 PM |
|
|
The Lone Weasel wrote:
Johnny Bravo <baawa_knight@yahoo.com> said:
On 05 Mar 2006 07:13:29 GMT, The Lone Weasel <loneweasel@gmail.com>
wrote:
Laws don't cause rights to exist,
Yes they do.
No, they don't!
Laws exist to PROTECT rights we all know we already have.
That's why YOU have the right to remain STUPID, Lee!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural Rights Dictated By Gods For Superstitious Nitwits Like David Moffitt |
05 Mar 2006 07:35:58 PM |
|
|
"John Evan" <tull@keyboards.gov> wrote in message
news:_eLOf.54$kE6.50@fe12.lga...
The Lone Weasel wrote:
Johnny Bravo <baawa_knight@yahoo.com> said:
On 05 Mar 2006 07:13:29 GMT, The Lone Weasel <loneweasel@gmail.com>
wrote:
Laws don't cause rights to exist,
Yes they do.
No, they don't!
Laws exist to PROTECT rights we all know we already have.
That's why YOU have the right to remain STUPID, Lee!
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed"
Declaration of Independence.
Hmmm... Laws come from government, but rights preexist government.
"It is to secure our rights that we resort to government at all." --Thomas
Jefferson to Francois D'Ivernois, 1795. FE 7:4
Darn, once again we implement government and law not to establish rights,
but to secure the rights we have.
"Here... will be preserved a model of government, securing to man his rights
and the fruits of his labor, by an organization constantly subject to his
own will." --Thomas Jefferson to William Plumer, 1815. ME 14:237
Darn, government and law once again existing not to establish rights, but to
secure the rights we already have.
Looks like you're right there John, and Lee is wrong. Of course, Lee is
almost always wrong, so it's not surprising he is wrong yet again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Lone Weasel" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural Rights Dictated By Gods For Superstitious Nitwits Like David Moffitt |
06 Mar 2006 11:21:04 AM |
|
|
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said:
Laws exist to PROTECT rights we all know we already have.
That's why YOU have the right to remain STUPID, Lee!
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration of Independence was not law, Snout.
Next.
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural Rights Dictated By Gods For Superstitious Nitwits Like David Moffitt |
06 Mar 2006 05:16:10 PM |
|
|
"The Lone Weasel" <loneweasel@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns977E737AD2C15loneweaselgmailcom@204.153.244.170...
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said:
Laws exist to PROTECT rights we all know we already have.
That's why YOU have the right to remain STUPID, Lee!
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration of Independence was not law, Snout.
Who says it needs to be law to note the purpose of government and law?
Lee tries to weasel out once again.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Morton" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural Rights Dictated By Gods For Superstitious Nitwits Like David Moffitt |
06 Mar 2006 11:43:16 AM |
|
|
In article <Xns977E737AD2C15loneweaselgmailcom@204.153.244.170>, The Lone Weasel
says...
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said:
Laws exist to PROTECT rights we all know we already have.
That's why YOU have the right to remain STUPID, Lee!
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration of Independence was not law, Snout.
Lee Harrison thinks that Jim Crow is still law.
--
--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with 210lb.
rapists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Evan" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural Rights Dictated By Gods For Superstitious Nitwits LikeDavid Moffitt |
06 Mar 2006 12:56:49 PM |
|
|
Chris Morton wrote:
In article <Xns977E737AD2C15loneweaselgmailcom@204.153.244.170>, The Lone Weasel
says...
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said:
Laws exist to PROTECT rights we all know we already have.
That's why YOU have the right to remain STUPID, Lee!
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration of Independence was not law, Snout.
Lee Harrison thinks that Jim Crow is still law.
Lee Harrison (who does not think) "believes" that Scout said that the
Declaration of Independence WAS "law!".
Apparently, Lee's daily diet of Cheetos and Miller Lite is effecting his
brain more then he thin...er, believes!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "0:-" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural Rights Dictated By Gods For Superstitious Nitwits LikeDavid Moffitt |
06 Mar 2006 12:13:45 PM |
|
|
The Lone Weasel wrote:
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said:
Laws exist to PROTECT rights we all know we already have.
That's why YOU have the right to remain STUPID, Lee!
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration of Independence was not law, Snout.
Then all you need do is show in our law, The Constitution, where it does
not adhere to the sentiments expressed in the Declaration of
Independence...that is where laws create rights.
Please proceed.
Next.
Yes, I know. We'll be here. You can trust in that. It's out job to
continue to show you how much of a loser you are.
Kane
--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "0:-" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural Rights Dictated By Gods For Superstitious Nitwits Like David Moffitt |
05 Mar 2006 05:27:23 PM |
|
|
The Lone Weasel wrote:
Johnny Bravo <baawa_knight@yahoo.com> said:
On 05 Mar 2006 07:13:29 GMT, The Lone Weasel <loneweasel@gmail.com>
wrote:
Enactment in national and international law is one of the ways in
which human rights exist.
Wrong from the first sentence, not that I'm surprised.
Laws don't cause rights to exist,
Yes they do.
No they don't. They are all subservient to the pre-existence of basic
rights. They answer to those rights.
If laws "gave" rights there would be no need for courts.
Those are your real, verifiable rights.
Of course they are.
You can defend
them in a court of law.
Sometimes you can, and sadly, sometimes you can't. You aren't
suggesting that all courts for all time have been the protector and
defender of human rights, are you?
I can't think of dozens of instances where that was not true. Many in
histor as recent as 70-80 years ago and more recent.
Your natural rights are the rights you have in heaven.
I have no rights after death. 'I' no longer exist. The universe does.
And 'rights' will continue to derive thereby. But no longer to me.
But they don't
allow guns in heaven, that's just my opinion...
You would have to believe in heaven to defend such a statement. I
don't, and I do not think you do. You are simply making the most stupid
argument you can muster because you know you lost, as usual, and have
nothing to contribute in the way of truth, facts, or logic.
they can protect those rights from
those willing to follow the law, that's about it.
No, our human rights are enforced by punishing those who infringe on
them.
Sometimes they are and sometimes they are not. The law doesn't
determine our rights. I describes them, and deals with the exercise of
them, but it is not the originator.
Your natural rights are enforced by anybody because you're not living in
a state of nature anymore.
There is no escaping nature. You are living you your natural body. That
is "nature."
Return to a state of nature and claim your
natural rights, Blobbo.
No need to "return." One never leaves.
Unfortunately for you, the USA is already a civil society like nearly
everyplace else on Earth.
Then you hold that 'civil society' is not a state of nature?
Even animals have "civil society." You can see the young become
schooled into it and respond by instinct to some of it. Where they fail
they will die, and sometimes the pack will kill them, just like with
humans.
Read John Locke, Blackstone, eg:
[begin excerpt]
THE ab=83olute rights of man, con=83idered as a free agent, endowed
with di=83cernment to knowe good from evil, and with power of
choo=83ing tho=83e mea=83ures which appear to him to be mo=83t de=83irabl=
e,
are u=83ually =83umed up on one general appellation, and denominated
the natural liberty of mankind. This natural liberty con=83i=83ts
properly in a power of acting as one thinks fit, without any
re=83traint or control, unle=83s by the law of nature : being a right
inherent in us by birth, and one of the gifts of God to man at
his creation, when he endued him with the faculty of freewill.
But every man, when he enters into =83ociety, gives up a part of
his natural liberty, as the price of =83o valuable a purcha=83e ;
and, in con=83ideration of receiving the advantages of mutual
commerce, obliges him=83elf to conform to tho=83e laws, which the
community has tought proper to e=83tabli=83h. And this =83pecies of
legal obedience and conformity is infinitely more de=83irable, than
that wild and =83avage liberty which is =83acrificed to obtain it.
for no man, that con=83iders a moment, would wi=83h to retain the
ab=83olute and uncontrolled power of doing whatever he plea=83es; the
con=83equence of which is, that every other man would al=83o have the
=83ame power ; and then there would be no =83ecurity to individuals
in any of the enjoyments of life.
Political therefore, or civil, liberty, which is that of a member
of =83ociety, is no other than natural liberty =83o far re=83trained by
human laws (and no farther) as is nece=83=83ary and expedient for the
general advantage of the publick. Hence we may collect that the
law, which re=83trains a man from doing mi=83chief to his fellow
citizens, though it dimini=83hes the natural, increa=83es the civil
liberty of mankind : but every wanton and cau=83ele=83s re=83traint of
the will of the =83ubject, whether practiced by a monarch, a
nobility, or a popular a=83=83embly, is a degree of tyranny.
Nay, that even laws them=83elves, whether made with or without our
con=83ent, if they regulate and con=83train our conduct in matters of
mere indifference, without any good end in view, are laws
de=83tructive of liberty : whereas if any public advantage can
ari=83e from ob=83erving =83uch precepts, the control of our private
inclinations, in one or two particular points, will conduce to
pre=83erve our general freedom in others of more importance ; by
=83upporting that =83tate, of =83ociety, which alone can =83ecure our
independence.
Thus the =83tatute of king Edward IV d, which forbad the fine
gentlemen of tho=83e times (under the degree of a lord) to wear
pikes upon their =83hoes or boots of more than two inches in
length, was a law that favoured of oppre=83=83ion ; becau=83e, however
ridiculous the fa=83hion then in u=83e might appear, the re=83training
it by pecuniary penalties could =83erve no purpo=83e of common
utility. But the =83tatute of king Charles II, which pre=83cribes a
thing =83eemingly as indifferent ; viz. a dre=83s for the dead, who
are all ordered to be buried in woollen; is a law con=83i=83tent with
public liberty, for it encourages the =83taple trade, on which in
great mea=83ure depends the univer=83al good of the nation. So that
laws, wen prudently framed, are by no means =83ubver=83ive but rather
introductive of liberty ; for (as Mr Locke has well ob=83erved)
where there is no law, there is no freedom.
But then, on the other hand, that con=83titution or frame of
government, that =83y=83tem of laws, is alone calculated to maintain
civil liberty, which leaves the =83ubject entire ma=83ter of his own
conduct, except in tho=83e points wherein the public good requires
=83ome direction or re=83traint.
BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND. BOOK THE
FIRST. OF THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS. CHAPTER THE FIRST. OF THE
ABSOLUTE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/bk1ch1.htm
[end excerpt]
It as about, but not "of," the issue we are discussing. It does not
define it. Nature is easily defined even by children. They are more
connected to it. We set up artificial barriers, but we can never escape
it. As our internal organs. They most often remind you of the reality
of what you are. A natural creature.
--
Yours truly,
=20
The Lone Weasel
I'm sorry. You lose again.=20
Kane
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mustapha, P" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural Rights Dictated By Gods For Superstitious Nitwits Like David Moffitt |
05 Mar 2006 11:30:29 AM |
|
|
The Lone Weasel <loneweasel@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns977DC7794F38loneweaselgmailcom@204.153.244.170:
[begin excerpt]
Enactment in national and international law is one of the ways in which
human rights exist. But many have suggested that this is not the only
way. If human rights exist only because of enactment, their
availability is contingent on domestic and international political
developments. Many people have sought to find a way to support the idea
that human rights have roots that are deeper and less subject to human
decisions than legal enactment. One version of this idea is that people
are born with rights, that human rights are somehow innate or inherent
in human beings. One way that a normative status could be inherent in
humans is by being God-given. The US Declaration of Independence
(1776) claims that people are "endowed by their Creator" with natural
rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." On this view,
God is the supreme lawmaker and enacted some basic human rights.
Rights plausibly attributed to divine decree must be very general and
abstract (life, liberty, etc.) so that they can apply to thousands of
years of human history, not just to recent centuries. But contemporary
human rights are more numerous and specific (the right to a fair trial,
the right to freedom of religion, the right to equality before the law,
etc.) Even if people are born with God-given natural rights, we need to
explain how we get from those general and abstract rights to the
specific rights found in contemporary declarations and treaties.
Attributing human rights to God's commands may give them a secure
status at the metaphysical level, but in a very diverse world it does
not in fact make them practically secure. Billions of people do not
believe in the God found in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. If people
do not believe in God, or in the sort of god that prescribes rights,
then if you want to base human rights on theological beliefs you must
persuade these people of a rights-supporting theological view, which is
likely to be even harder than persuading them of human rights. Legal
enactment at the national and international levels provides a far more
secure status for practical purposes.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-human/#1
[end excerpt]
I think the reason gunloons hang on to pretensions of natural rights is
simply because natural rights theory has been discounted for good
reasons for a long time, and they need fuzzy, feel-good slogan-oriented
horseshit to justify their gun obsessions to others. It's just like
religion because natural rights are dictated by gods, and there's no
secular way to have nature "assign" natural rights to a state power
that makes and enforces laws, including weapons laws.
I think if you want to assert natural rights as an excuse to play with
guns, fine; but don't pretend you have god-granted rights to play with
guns, because that violates the establishment clause from the First
Amendment, and if you have to tear down the US Constitution to justify
supernatural gun rights you get in church, all I can say is GET DOWN,
CLOWN!
So the notion that gun rights flow from gods is just nuts, and your
only supporting evidence is your personal belief, which, because you're
a big liar, is not persuasive.
Your turn, Muppet.
You gonna feel like a real ***** standing in front of the pearly gates beggin
to come in to avoid the other place. I'll wave bye-bye.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Lone Weasel" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural Rights Dictated By Gods For Superstitious Nitwits Like David Moffitt |
05 Mar 2006 02:12:18 PM |
|
|
(Mustapha, P) said:
The Lone Weasel <loneweasel@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns977DC7794F38loneweaselgmailcom@204.153.244.170:
[begin excerpt]
Enactment in national and international law is one of the ways in
which human rights exist. But many have suggested that this is not
the only way. If human rights exist only because of enactment, their
availability is contingent on domestic and international political
developments. Many people have sought to find a way to support the
idea that human rights have roots that are deeper and less subject to
human decisions than legal enactment. One version of this idea is
that people are born with rights, that human rights are somehow
innate or inherent in human beings. One way that a normative status
could be inherent in humans is by being God-given. The US Declaration
of Independence (1776) claims that people are "endowed by their
Creator" with natural rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness." On this view, God is the supreme lawmaker and enacted
some basic human rights.
Rights plausibly attributed to divine decree must be very general and
abstract (life, liberty, etc.) so that they can apply to thousands of
years of human history, not just to recent centuries. But
contemporary human rights are more numerous and specific (the right
to a fair trial, the right to freedom of religion, the right to
equality before the law, etc.) Even if people are born with God-given
natural rights, we need to explain how we get from those general and
abstract rights to the specific rights found in contemporary
declarations and treaties. Attributing human rights to God's commands
may give them a secure status at the metaphysical level, but in a
very diverse world it does not in fact make them practically secure.
Billions of people do not believe in the God found in Christianity,
Islam, and Judaism. If people do not believe in God, or in the sort
of god that prescribes rights, then if you want to base human rights
on theological beliefs you must persuade these people of a
rights-supporting theological view, which is likely to be even harder
than persuading them of human rights. Legal enactment at the national
and international levels provides a far more secure status for
practical purposes.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-human/#1
[end excerpt]
I think the reason gunloons hang on to pretensions of natural rights
is simply because natural rights theory has been discounted for good
reasons for a long time, and they need fuzzy, feel-good
slogan-oriented horseshit to justify their gun obsessions to others.
It's just like religion because natural rights are dictated by gods,
and there's no secular way to have nature "assign" natural rights to
a state power that makes and enforces laws, including weapons laws.
I think if you want to assert natural rights as an excuse to play
with guns, fine; but don't pretend you have god-granted rights to
play with guns, because that violates the establishment clause from
the First Amendment, and if you have to tear down the US Constitution
to justify supernatural gun rights you get in church, all I can say
is GET DOWN, CLOWN!
So the notion that gun rights flow from gods is just nuts, and your
only supporting evidence is your personal belief, which, because
you're a big liar, is not persuasive.
Your turn, Muppet.
You gonna feel like a real ***** standing in front of the pearly gates
beggin to come in to avoid the other place. I'll wave bye-bye.
Then you'll be stuck with a choir of Christians singing praises to the
Christian god for all eternity. Lucky Gooseboy!
I'll be in Animist paradise where they have the original "Pearly Gates"
behind the bar. An Animist's paradise and hell are exactly the same...
Fun.
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh...
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Franks" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural Rights Dictated By Gods For Superstitious Nitwits LikeDavid Moffitt |
05 Mar 2006 11:32:14 AM |
|
|
The Lone Weasel wrote:
I think if you want to assert natural rights as an excuse to play with
guns, fine; but don't pretend you have god-granted rights to play with
guns, because that violates the establishment clause from the First
Amendment, and if you have to tear down the US Constitution to justify
supernatural gun rights you get in church, all I can say is GET DOWN,
CLOWN!
It doesn't really matter how 'gunloons' or 'hoplophobes' interpret the
Constitution or Amendment II. The short of it is that Federal
Government has no delegated power to regulate arms ownership.
Check w/ your state's constitution to see if arms ownership is a State
protected right or not.
In those states where it is not a State protected right, check with that
state's constitution to verify that the state has been expressly
delegated the power to restrict/regulate/infringe arms ownership.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Lone Weasel" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural Rights Dictated By Gods For Superstitious Nitwits Like David Moffitt |
05 Mar 2006 02:01:58 PM |
|
|
Peter Franks <none@none.com> said:
The Lone Weasel wrote:
I think if you want to assert natural rights as an excuse to play with
guns, fine; but don't pretend you have god-granted rights to play with
guns, because that violates the establishment clause from the First
Amendment, and if you have to tear down the US Constitution to justify
supernatural gun rights you get in church, all I can say is GET DOWN,
CLOWN!
It doesn't really matter how 'gunloons' or 'hoplophobes' interpret the
Constitution or Amendment II. The short of it is that Federal
Government has no delegated power to regulate arms ownership.
See US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
The Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,
and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.
Congress has power to regulate commerce among the several states, which
includes firearms, dumbass. See US Code, Title 18, Chapter 44; also, 26
USC, Chapter 53.
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural Rights Dictated By Gods For Superstitious Nitwits Like David Moffitt |
05 Mar 2006 02:20:58 PM |
|
|
"The Lone Weasel" <loneweasel@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns977D8EC1D73DEloneweaselgmailcom@204.153.244.170...
Peter Franks <none@none.com> said:
The Lone Weasel wrote:
I think if you want to assert natural rights as an excuse to play with
guns, fine; but don't pretend you have god-granted rights to play with
guns, because that violates the establishment clause from the First
Amendment, and if you have to tear down the US Constitution to justify
supernatural gun rights you get in church, all I can say is GET DOWN,
CLOWN!
It doesn't really matter how 'gunloons' or 'hoplophobes' interpret the
Constitution or Amendment II. The short of it is that Federal
Government has no delegated power to regulate arms ownership.
See US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
The Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,
and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.
Congress has power to regulate commerce among the several states, which
includes firearms, dumbass. See US Code, Title 18, Chapter 44; also, 26
USC, Chapter 53.
2nd Amendment. They can't infringe upon the right of the people to keep and
bear arms.
Order of precedence. The Amendments override any powers granted in the main
body. So while Congress can regulate interstate commerce they can not do so
in a manner that will restrict, regulate, or infringe upon the freedom of
press, arms, religion, etc. That's because any ability to use the commerce
clause for those things was removed by Amendment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Lone Weasel" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural Rights Dictated By Gods For Superstitious Nitwits Like David Moffitt |
05 Mar 2006 05:31:30 PM |
|
|
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said:
"The Lone Weasel" <loneweasel@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns977D8EC1D73DEloneweaselgmailcom@204.153.244.170...
Peter Franks <none@none.com> said:
The Lone Weasel wrote:
I think if you want to assert natural rights as an excuse to play
with guns, fine; but don't pretend you have god-granted rights to
play with guns, because that violates the establishment clause from
the First Amendment, and if you have to tear down the US
Constitution to justify supernatural gun rights you get in church,
all I can say is GET DOWN, CLOWN!
It doesn't really matter how 'gunloons' or 'hoplophobes' interpret
the Constitution or Amendment II. The short of it is that Federal
Government has no delegated power to regulate arms ownership.
See US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
The Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce with foreign
Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.
Congress has power to regulate commerce among the several states,
which includes firearms, dumbass. See US Code, Title 18, Chapter 44;
also, 26 USC, Chapter 53.
2nd Amendment. They can't infringe upon the right of the people to
keep and bear arms.
Then you should be able to cite dozens of state weapons laws and state
constitutions that have been overturned by the federal judiciary for
infringing somebody's right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.
Cite your cases, Snoutosky.
Order of precedence.
Order of precedence is the order in which persons qualify for something,
like the presidency if the president dies, or for an inheritance.
Sounds like you want to say that because the amendments come after the
rest of the Constitution, amendments are authoritive if they conflict
with previous constitutional law.
What about it?
The Amendments override any powers granted in the
main body. So while Congress can regulate interstate commerce they can
not do so in a manner that will restrict, regulate, or infringe upon
the freedom of press, arms, religion, etc. That's because any ability
to use the commerce clause for those things was removed by Amendment.
What amendment? If you don't believe me check 10 USC, Chapter 44 and 26
USC, Chapter 53.
Looks like you lose again, Snout. Too bad...
Too bad.
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural Rights Dictated By Gods For Superstitious Nitwits Like David Moffitt |
05 Mar 2006 07:27:46 PM |
|
|
"The Lone Weasel" <loneweasel@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns977DB248CE825loneweaselgmailcom@204.153.244.170...
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said:
"The Lone Weasel" <loneweasel@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns977D8EC1D73DEloneweaselgmailcom@204.153.244.170...
Peter Franks <none@none.com> said:
The Lone Weasel wrote:
I think if you want to assert natural rights as an excuse to play
with guns, fine; but don't pretend you have god-granted rights to
play with guns, because that violates the establishment clause from
the First Amendment, and if you have to tear down the US
Constitution to justify supernatural gun rights you get in church,
all I can say is GET DOWN, CLOWN!
It doesn't really matter how 'gunloons' or 'hoplophobes' interpret
the Constitution or Amendment II. The short of it is that Federal
Government has no delegated power to regulate arms ownership.
See US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
The Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce with foreign
Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.
Congress has power to regulate commerce among the several states,
which includes firearms, dumbass. See US Code, Title 18, Chapter 44;
also, 26 USC, Chapter 53.
2nd Amendment. They can't infringe upon the right of the people to
keep and bear arms.
Then you should be able to cite dozens of state weapons laws and state
constitutions that have been overturned by the federal judiciary for
infringing somebody's right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.
Cite your cases, Snoutosky.
Poor Lee, simply can't accept anything without the blessing of "an
authority".
So tell me Lee, what "authority" can you cite that allows you to breath?
Order of precedence.
Order of precedence is the order in which persons qualify for something,
like the presidency if the president dies, or for an inheritance.
Sounds like you want to say that because the amendments come after the
rest of the Constitution, amendments are authoritive if they conflict
with previous constitutional law.
What about it?
Yep, the last Amendment supercedes everything that came before it which is
in conflict, and the next to the last Amendment supercedes everything that
came before it which is in conflict, and so on. See that's what Amendments
do. They supercede that which went before in other that they can alter it.
So IF the government had any authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate
the interstate sale of arms, the 2nd restricts that authority since Congress
can not act in a manner that infringes upon the right of the people to those
arms.
Indeed, it's the same reason an excise tax on Printer's ink was overturned.
Because the 1st Amendment supercedes the authority of government to
specifically tax such items since doing so would conflict with the freedom
of the press.
I know that this process is more than you can handle, but maybe you can find
someone who passed high school civics to explain it to you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
