Equal Rights.
Equal Rights
Today I learned about Equal Rights...although not in the manner in which you may be accustomed. I'm referring to the RIGHTS themselves being equal in that they should be treated equally, as well as that people should also have them equally.
NO DISCRIMINATION
The Second Amendment reads:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
To repeat and emphasize the pertinent part to which I am speaking to in this rant.
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms
It says so right there in black and white. I’m not addressing any other characteristic or any other aspect of it other than that at this time. It’s a RIGHT.
What IS a right? An Online Dictionary says
In Constitutional Law, rights are classified as natural, civil, and political. Natural rights are those that are believed to grow out of the nature of the individual human being and depend on her personality, such as the rights to life, liberty, privacy, and the pursuit of happiness.
Civil Rights are those that belong to every citizen of the state, and are not connected with the organization or administration of government. They include the rights of property, marriage, protection by law, freedom to contract, trial by jury, and the like. These rights are capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil action in a court.
Political rights entail the power to participate directly or indirectly in the establishment or administration of government,such as the right of citizenship, the right to vote, and the right to hold public office.
The United States Declaration of Independence says :
SO...beyond any doubt, the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms is a RIGHT.
Consider other rights. Such as the right to vote
Voting is beyond any doubt, a RIGHT.
In the past that right has been restricted. At certain times in history it has been reserved for ONLY certain people. Certain people were discriminated against and....their right to vote was infringed....
Hmm...where have we heard....shall not be infringed.?
Consider other rights. The first amendment says.
Let’s examine it more closely. It says that Congress:
- shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Is that so hard to understand? Congress (later extended to cover state and local governments) shall KEEP their nasty hands OFF of Religion.
- or abridging the freedom of speech,
Congress (later extended to cover state and local governments) shall KEEP their nasty hands OFF of the right of a person to say what they want to.
- or of the press
Congress (later extended to cover state and local governments) shall KEEP their nasty hands OFF of the right of a person to write what they want to. (That would include Video, Radio, and the Internet).
- or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
Congress (later extended to cover state and local governments) shall KEEP their nasty hands OFF of the right of a people to peacefully assemble. Concerts, Churches, Political Protests, and Monster Truck Exhibitions are included.
- and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Congress (later extended to cover state and local governments) shall not prohibit a person from telling the government that ‘you done me WRONG!”
Those are all RIGHTS.
Consider...a permit to speak. For example, “You must pay a fee and speak only under certain conditions and take a class and not speak publicly...you must only speak privately and in concealment"
or a permit to write... for example...”you must pay a fee, renewable periodically......etc..etc..etc.."
WHY NOT?
If a concealed carry permit( or any kind of permit) is required for any kind of arm then why NOT a permit to worship in the manner of your own choosing?
If a ‘gun free zone” is allowed, then why not have a ‘no free speech zone’ as well? or a 'no christian zone' or a 'no muslim zone'?
A RIGHT is a RIGHT... is it not?
All Rights are equally valid and should be treated
So on one hand, you cite the text of the first and second amendment amendment as though you would have them enforced literally.
But on the other hand, you immediately go on to re-interpret them to suit your world view, ignoring their literal text and making some quip about filthy hands.
As to your examples; the first amendment sets a higher standard for law regarding religion than it does for laws in other matters. The government is allowed to make no law regarding religion.
Your attempt to extend the standard to every other matter mentioned in the bill of rights is sophistry. No, a right is not a right (at least, not from the perspective of law). Each individual right enumerated in the text of the bill of rights is different.
What constitutes abridging someone's freedom of speech? Does making it illegal for them to yell "fire" in a public theater constitute an abridgment? Does making pornography or obscenity illegal?
What constitutes an "infringement" on the right to bear arms. Does making any kind of gun or arm illegal constitute an infringement? If the government says "hey jason. You can't carry around a loaded bazooka at an elementary school" constitute an infringement of my right to bear arms?
You could argue it either way. And im sure you and I would probably disagree on what exactly constitutes an infringement.
Fortunately, the founding fathers gave us a way to determine exactly what constitutes an infringement of these rights. We have the courts, with the supreme court being the highest. The very constitution that established these rights also established the court to interpret their scope.
The court said the state can make it illegal for you to yell fire in a public theater, then they changed their mind. So for a while the state could make it illegal to yell fire, then they couldnt. The court says you can show a boob, but not a nipple. The court says that individual states and municipalities can make laws about registering and carrying handguns.
The constitution is the constitution. You can't just cherry pick the parts that say what you want to hear and disregard the rest.
One question, at that time these rights didn't apply to slaves and to some men who weren't considered free men, they couldn't bear arms, and these guys couldn't vote either, and guess what? Women couldn't vote either, so your founding fathers didn't have these people in mind when they assigned these rights, so what happened here?
at that time
Since then those errors have been rectified.
Sane people strive to learn from past mistakes.
I dunno what country you are from. You might check your history a bit.
__ 1775–83: Britain's rebellious North American Colonies ban or suspend the Atlantic slave trade.[33]__
We also fought a warover slavery a hundred years later, when some folks refused to take the hint.
A million died.
What a nice way to engage in discussion!
Let's just lead off with an obnoxious statement like "I don't know what country you're from!"
Hmmm, I think that translates to "You don't know SHYTE!"
Great. Building much Social Capital with those tactics? Naw, you don't need community! You are a FREE MAN! You can do it yourself! Have fun carrying all that water - the LAST thing you want to do is collectively create a water distribution system that benefits your whole society, so that no one has to carry water daily, and to create jobs running said system. NO, SOCIAL programs like that lead to Becoming NAZIS! Or worse, damn red COMMIES!!!
Arguably, the Civil War had less to do with slavery and more to do with the balances of power. Slavery was just a convenient rallying cry. No, no further discussion needed. Look it up or just don't believe it - I don't care.
Rights have hierarchies. (that is why it is illegal to shout "fire" in a movie theater. The right of life, is higher than the right of free speech.)
The right to property. If you own it, you have control over it. So, you can, on your property say, no guns and control speech.
Creating a "free speech zone" is in violation of the first amendment.
Having a concealed carry permit is in violation of the second amendment. Also it is selling someone the ability to break the law. Making a law, and then allowing some people to break the law, if they pay up, is extortion.
If there IS a fire in the movie theater...then let em burn...is that what you want?
Your argument is thus....invalid.
I just realized you might not know what I am talking about...
It is a typical example used when actually discussing the limits of rights.
The freedom of speech vs. yelling "fire" in a theatre (when there is no fire)
(also concerning a time when theatres were much more combustible)
With the freedom of speech, you should be able to say anything you want a public space. (legally speaking)
If you yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, then many people will be hurt as they stampede the exits. So, if you yell "fire", when there is no fire, then you are intentionally hurting people.
So, at the end, you have freedom of speech vs. human lives.
And in this specific instance, the law has come down on the side of human lives. It is illegal for you to yell "fire" in a theatre.
I just woke up so I'm not going to provide links or anything...this is a memory thing.
The "screaming fire in a crowded theater'thing actually happened. The problem was that the theater owner had locked all the fire excape doors. (chicagoI think...suprising huh?)...
People were crushed to death...
chicago...(the mob?)...how surprising.
To reinterate: what if there IS a fire?
The damn fire alarm goes off.
OR
Someone yells fire and it is not an issue because there really IS a fire.
What are you trying to get at McDicky?
No no no, that is just the fire in the movie.... everything is ok... that is just the new added feature of smell.
They've added smell to movies now... its the latest craze. That's why you smell smoke
:-p
"We are endowed by OUR CREATOR with...rights. The purpose of the Bill of rights is to make sure that no one, especially government, interferes with them!