Constitutional Rights

[Cruentus]

I think you are incorrect in your ascertion that the rights in the Bill of Rights are not 'Granted' by the Bill of Rights, but that they are 'inalienable'.
These two ideas are not interchangable. The Bill of Rights does define rights to people living in America. Those rights are granted by the State.

No; I am correct on this:
"A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:388, Papers 12:440

"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

It was understood that all people have natural rights that exist whether governments grant these or not; the bill of rights was just detailing these.

The idea that the bill of rights is what grants us our freedoms is a misconception; the bill of rights is simply a written recognition of rights that we already have based on natural law or "the laws of nature." You can read John Locke and letters from the old arguments behind the bill of rights if you want; I won't do your homework for you.

The 2nd amendment was considered an inalienable right, among the rest:
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45

You might not like this, and you might want to argue that people don't have inalienable rights, or that the right to self-defense or to bear arms is not inalienable, but these are not the principles of which the United States was founded on.

 

[michaeledward]

I notice that you are not quoting any actual LAWS in the United States.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

For example, although I have the right to live safely, if I choose to jump off a building, I have for that moment forgone that right. I should have no reasonable expectation that I am not going to at least get injured from that action.

I would question in what way you believe that we have the right to live safely? I don’t think that is the case at all. No one has the right to live free from floods, earthquakes, building collapses, even simple animal attacks. All of life is associated with risks, even to a person’s life, therefore no right to live safely exists.

What you are speaking of sounds more akin to a right of sovereignty over ourselves. We can control what actions we take, and place ourselves in more of less risk of death/injury, but there is never a possibility of living absolutely safely even if one so chooses, therefore no such right exists.

Inalienable rights are self-evident. Our right to exist, our right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness are all self-evident; these are rights that we have regardless of whether a government system chooses to recognize it or not. Other rights that enable us to exist and pursue life, liberty and happiness (like freedom of speech, the right to assemble, and the right to defend ourselves) are also self-evident. These are detailed in our Bill of rights, BUT NOT GRANTED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS. THis is an important distinction.

I have to disagree. Even if you do side with the Founders, the only inalienable rights that they explicitly spoke about were the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Although they believed that the things enumerated in the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, were what allowed the rights to exist within a governmental system, they were not toe inalienable rights that they speak about.

One can infer that such claims are made, but that is not the same.

I'm sure you know that is from the Declaration of Independence. An interesting question would be, does the Declaration provide any basis for law in the United States.

Law is not based on the Declaration of Independence. However, depending on the judge, it can be used as the basis for interpreting the law, which would lead to it de facto being law. Also, legislators us the philosophical framework, or should use, it to determine new laws.

I notice that you are not quoting any actual LAWS in the United States.

How about this:

Alabama: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 26

Arkansas: The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense. Art. II, § 5

Colorado: The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. Art. II, § 13

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15

Delaware: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use. Art. I, § 20

Florida: (a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.

Georgia: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne. Art. I, § 1

In the immortal words of the propaganda machine of the movie "Starship Troopers,"

"Would you like to know more?"

 

[Cryozombie]

I notice that you are not quoting any actual LAWS in the United States.

Ya know whats funny about that Mike? We had a debate on here a while back about "Seperation of church and state" where I indicated that the letter of the law as it was written did not provide for it, and the argument was thrown back at me that regardless of theletter of the law, the founders intended it to be so as evidenced in their other writings.

Now here the issues are reversed, and the other writings are no good, you want to only aknowlage the letter of the law.

Interesting.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Ya know whats funny about that Mike? We had a debate on here a while back about "Seperation of church and state" where I indicated that the letter of the law as it was written did not provide for it, and the argument was thrown back at me that regardless of theletter of the law, the founders intended it to be so as evidenced in their other writings.

Now here the issues are reversed, and the other writings are no good, you want to only aknowlage the letter of the law.

Interesting.

Its human nature (and internet debating nature) to use whatever you can to support your particular point of view. I know I do it. Nobody is going to have an instant change of opinion here. gradually..over time people may change, but they sure as shootin are not going to admit it.

 

[Cryozombie]

Here is Illinois by the way... not that they deem to follow it:

RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the
individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

 

[Cruentus]

I would question in what way you believe that we have the right to live safely?

...


I have to disagree. Even if you do side with the Founders, the only inalienable rights that they explicitly spoke about were the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Well, we are splitting hairs on definitions with the word "safe." The right to be relatively safe is inalienable. When I say this, I mean the right to be safe based on factors you can control, not uncontrollable factors such as natural disasters. But even so, a key role of government is to safeguard the people, implying that in as much as we can control it, "safety" is inalienable. Perhaps, if I said "the pursuit of safety," then that might sound better?

And as to the Bill of Rights; you can disagree all you want, but that doesn't change the historicity and the philosophy. The Declaration of Independence was a key document in outlining the philosophy of which all of our laws are based off of; that philosophy being that the right of man to pursue life, liberty, and happiness is inalienable, as is rights assumed by the "laws of nature" to ensure that man can pursue life, liberty, and happiness. The Bill of rights is a detail of these assumed rights given by the "laws of nature." This all goes back to Lockean philosophy, and the arguments of between Madison and Jefferson about even needing to detail a Bill of Rights at all, with the other side of the argument being that these rights are assumed not "granted" (as no government can grant natural rights) and therefore do not need to be detailed. You can disagree, but the history behind this is all there, and I provided some links that apparently no one wants to read to point people in the right direction.

I notice that you are not quoting any actual LAWS in the United States.

There are plenty of laws related to self-defense and the right to bear arms, and you know it. Kenpo 5-0 listed some. Your trolling now, it seems.

But you know what is cool about inalienable rights? The "laws" are incidental to the fact that you have these rights anyway because of the simple fact that you are a human being.

Nobody is going to have an instant change of opinion here. gradually..over time people may change, but they sure as shootin are not going to admit it.

You are probably correct. That is frustrating to me because I would be perfectly willing to change my views on something and admit it if I thought I was wrong based on the arguments and evidence. I have in fact done so with this very issue in the past. So usually the playing field is not even when I have these discussions, because I am not willing to stick to my opinion at all costs and no matter how silly like my opposition.

Speaking of which, I am seriously thinking of aborting this thread, as it seems to have gotten a bit silly. I feel like opposing arguers have basically resorted to trolling and splitting hairs, and have not really provided a sound opposing argument in return. But, we'll see...

 

[Blotan Hunka]

If delf-defense isnt part of the right to LIFE. I dont know what is.

 

[dart68]

Well, we are splitting hairs on definitions with the word "safe." The right to be relatively safe is inalienable. When I say this, I mean the right to be safe based on factors you can control, not uncontrollable factors such as natural disasters. But even so, a key role of government is to safeguard the people, implying that in as much as we can control it, "safety" is inalienable. Perhaps, if I said "the pursuit of safety," then that might sound better?

And as to the Bill of Rights; you can disagree all you want, but that doesn't change the historicity and the philosophy. The Declaration of Independence was a key document in outlining the philosophy of which all of our laws are based off of; that philosophy being that the right of man to pursue life, liberty, and happiness is inalienable, as is rights assumed by the "laws of nature" to ensure that man can pursue life, liberty, and happiness. The Bill of rights is a detail of these assumed rights given by the "laws of nature." This all goes back to Lockean philosophy, and the arguments of between Madison and Jefferson about even needing to detail a Bill of Rights at all, with the other side of the argument being that these rights are assumed not "granted" (as no government can grant natural rights) and therefore do not need to be detailed. You can disagree, but the history behind this is all there, and I provided some links that apparently no one wants to read to point people in the right direction.



There are plenty of laws related to self-defense and the right to bear arms, and you know it. Kenpo 5-0 listed some. Your trolling now, it seems.

But you know what is cool about inalienable rights? The "laws" are incidental to the fact that you have these rights anyway because of the simple fact that you are a human being.



You are probably correct. That is frustrating to me because I would be perfectly willing to change my views on something and admit it if I thought I was wrong based on the arguments and evidence. I have in fact done so with this very issue in the past. So usually the playing field is not even when I have these discussions, because I am not willing to stick to my opinion at all costs and no matter how silly like my opposition.

Speaking of which, I am seriously thinking of aborting this thread, as it seems to have gotten a bit silly. I feel like opposing arguers have basically resorted to trolling and splitting hairs, and have not really provided a sound opposing argument in return. But, we'll see...

I don't believe anyone has the right to feel safe. I do think that you have the right to feel reasonably safe in your own home. That right does not extend to being in public. The reason is that what makes one person feel safe may not be enough for another. You do have the right to protect yourself in the event someone tries to make life unsafe for you.

I think trolling is the correct term. Splitting hairs and arguing for the sake of arguing. In that light, that's not even playing the part of the devil's advocate.

I picture someone at their keyboard acting like a child with their fingers in their ears saying, "Na na na I can't hear you na na na! I want names and addresses of people and written scripture on the laws that don't exist even when someone shows them to me."

Or perhaps that it's the Amity Island mayor syndrome. He's not going to believe there's a shark until it swims up and bites him on the ***!

 

[michaeledward]

Law is not based on the Declaration of Independence. However, depending on the judge, it can be used as the basis for interpreting the law, which would lead to it de facto being law. Also, legislators us the philosophical framework, or should use, it to determine new laws.

This is interesting ... I suppose that is what the Conservatives would call 'activist judges'. We hear outrage from Conservatives when judges reference material other than U.S. Law in their opinions, don't we?

How about this:

Alabama: .... Art. I, § 26
Arkansas: .... Art. II, § 5
Colorado: .... Art. II, § 13
Connecticut: .... Art. I, § 15
Delaware: .... Art. I, § 20
Georgia: .... Art. I, § 1

Thank you. Those are excellent references. I suppose it is unfortunate that the United Nations survey did not include polling these several states.

 

[michaeledward]

re: trolling.

The discussion began with a report from the UN that there are no laws in the member nations that describe a right to self-defense. No one has refuted or disproved that ascertion.

Everybody has an opinion ... but those opinions are not backed up with international legal framework.

5-0 Kenpo showed State laws about three posts above. Which I think I have acknowleged.

I suppose if you ignore the subject, anything can be trolling.

So, who is doing the name calling?

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

re: trolling.

The discussion began with a report from the UN that there are no laws in the member nations that describe a right to self-defense. No one has refuted or disproved that ascertion.

Everybody has an opinion ... but those opinions are not backed up with international legal framework.

5-0 Kenpo showed State laws about three posts above. Which I think I have acknowleged.

I suppose if you ignore the subject, anything can be trolling.

So, who is doing the name calling?

Um, I think I did refute that ascertion. Unless the United States (and its political subdivisions) are no longer a member nation of the U.N.

Well, we are splitting hairs on definitions with the word "safe." The right to be relatively safe is inalienable. When I say this, I mean the right to be safe based on factors you can control, not uncontrollable factors such as natural disasters. But even so, a key role of government is to safeguard the people, implying that in as much as we can control it, "safety" is inalienable. Perhaps, if I said "the pursuit of safety," then that might sound better?

With this statement, you are showing me that you are not going to be willing to concede a point no matter what. Even to someone who agrees with your point on the overall thread.

And even Jefferson, I believe, would agree with me:

"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



Personal soveriegnty. But no where does he say that people have a right to live safely. It comes close when Jefferson states:

"The Constitutions of our several States vary more or less in some particulars. But there are certain principles in which all agree, and which all cherish as vitally essential to the protection of the life, liberty, property, and safety of the citizen....


But again, although he specifies that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as rights elsewhere, nowhere does he call the "safety of the citizen" a right. You may call it splitting hairs, but I am not so arrogant as to attribute a statement to a man who has more than made his thoughts to us known.

And as to the Bill of Rights; you can disagree all you want, but that doesn't change the historicity and the philosophy. The Declaration of Independence was a key document in outlining the philosophy of which all of our laws are based off of; that philosophy being that the right of man to pursue life, liberty, and happiness is inalienable, as is rights assumed by the "laws of nature" to ensure that man can pursue life, liberty, and happiness. The Bill of rights is a detail of these assumed rights given by the "laws of nature." This all goes back to Lockean philosophy, and the arguments of between Madison and Jefferson about even needing to detail a Bill of Rights at all, with the other side of the argument being that these rights are assumed not "granted" (as no government can grant natural rights) and therefore do not need to be detailed. You can disagree, but the history behind this is all there, and I provided some links that apparently no one wants to read to point people in the right direction.

What I think you are referring to is this statement by Jefferson:

"It is a principle that the right to a thing gives a right to the means without which it could not be used, that is to say, that the means follow their end." --Thomas Jefferson: --Thomas Jefferson: Report on Navigation of the Mississippi, 1792. ME 3:180

"The right to use a thing comprehends a right to the means necessary to its use, and without which it would be useless." --Thomas Jefferson to William Carmichael, 1790. ME 8:72



So, in other words, if one has the right to life, one must have the right to the means to protect that life. Hence, by extension, the right to self-defense. But I still don't see how that gives one the right to live safely. Then we would just have a bunch of redundant rights, to the point where one could begin to argue that everything is a right.

And although you may feel that splitting hairs is tiresome, when waging battles of philosophy, especially in trying to figure out the "natural" rights of man, holding someone to exacting standards does not seem out of place.

 

[michaeledward]

Um, I think I did refute that ascertion. Unless the United States (and its political subdivisions) are no longer a member nation of the U.N.

The States you listed are not members of the United Nations.

 

[Cruentus]

But again, although he specifies that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as rights elsewhere, nowhere does he call the "safety of the citizen" a right. You may call it splitting hairs, but I am not so arrogant as to attribute a statement to a man who has more than made his thoughts to us known.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315

And your quote:

"The Constitutions of our several States vary more or less in some particulars. But there are certain principles in which all agree, and which all cherish as vitally essential to the protection of the life, liberty, property, and safety of the citizen....

Again, I have to disagree with you. This has nothing to do with an unwillingness to concede a point (I could say that you are the one who is unwilling at this stage), or me being "arrogent" as you propose. Nor does a right to live safely mean that all of a sudden anyone can call anything an inalienable right. Your all over the place with this one and not making any sense.

The word safety is used in quotes that lumps it in with other inalienable rights, and is even stated in the declaration. This has also been stated in many State constitutions.

Some Examples:

N. Dakota: "All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed.

Ohio: All men are, by nature, free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and seeking and obtaining happiness and safety.

California: All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

The list goes on:

http://www.saf.org/default.asp?p=rkba_protections

The point is, "safety" has been considered an inalienable right by many since the inception of our constitution and before. You may not agree with the idea of 'safety' being inalienable, but the fact is that the idea has been around for quite sometime. Now, we can discuss what this idea of "safety" means, but I don't think that we can deny that this has always been somewhere in the picture of our inalienable rights.

And I happen to agree with the right to safety being an inalienable one in the same sense that the right to freely assemble (for example) is an inalienable one, in that you have the right so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

But you can believe what you want, I guess. :idunno:

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

The States you listed are not members of the United Nations.

The States are members of the U.N. by virtue of being a part of the United States. In any event, based on your wording, I am still correct.

The discussion began with a report from the UN that there are no laws in the member nations that describe a right to self-defense. No one has refuted or disproved that ascertion.

The various states are inside of the member nation, therefore there are laws in the member nations that describe such a right. Or are you simply saying that the federal government has no such laws? In that, I will agree with you.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315

Ok, I see a statement about how the government should be formed, but no right stated.

"The Constitutions of our several States vary more or less in some particulars. But there are certain principles in which all agree, and which all cherish as vitally essential to the protection of the life, liberty, property, and safety of the citizen....

Again, principle, but no right to safety, as I stated before.

N. Dakota: "All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed.

Ohio: All men are, by nature, free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and seeking and obtaining happiness and safety.

California: All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

In all of your examples, notice the specific wording: obtaining safety. I can agree with them that the right to obtain safety exists in the law of nature. But, unless you believe that the writers of these various text don't believe that the specificity of words is important, they never said that safety itself is a right.

As an example, the sixth amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Now let's take out the words in bold, which are merely adjectives. But doesn't this put a whole new spin on the amendment.

So, in closing, the things that you have put up for support for your position in no way say that there is a right to safety.

 

[Cruentus]

In all of your examples, notice the specific wording: obtaining safety. I can agree with them that the right to obtain safety exists in the law of nature. But, unless you believe that the writers of these various text don't believe that the specificity of words is important, they never said that safety itself is a right.

As an example, the sixth amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Now let's take out the words in bold, which are merely adjectives. But doesn't this put a whole new spin on the amendment.

So, in closing, the things that you have put up for support for your position in no way say that there is a right to safety.

Well, we can say a right to "obtain" safety if that makes you feel better. It makes me feel better. That is a better way of explaining it, just as the right to "pursue" happiness is better then saying the right to happiness for various different reasons. I agree with you that language can be important.
However, a better way of explaining something doesn't change the INALIENABLE RIGHT THAT I HAVE BEEN ESPOUSING ALL ALONG.

I find it funny that you yourself never offered the words "obtain" safety until I quoted them. So, basically you were simply looking to argue with someone and make yourself feel better rather then offer a valid alternative or any content to a discussion. Congratulations. That is only about the nerdiest thing one could do on an internet forum, so you should be proud.

In closing, I am willing to use the words "obtain safety" from now on simply because it is a better explanation; glad I found it in those quotes. However, a better way of saying something doesn't invalidate the essence of the inalienable right that I have been talking about. The right for human beings to obtain safety is inalienable. Big difference? Anything changed as far as the topic goes? Not really...

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Well, we can say a right to "obtain" safety if that makes you feel better. It makes me feel better. That is a better way of explaining it, just as the right to "pursue" happiness is better then saying the right to happiness for various different reasons. I agree with you that language can be important.
However, a better way of explaining something doesn't change the INALIENABLE RIGHT THAT I HAVE BEEN ESPOUSING ALL ALONG.

I find it funny that you yourself never offered the words "obtain" safety until I quoted them. So, basically you were simply looking to argue with someone and make yourself feel better rather then offer a valid alternative or any content to a discussion. Congratulations. That is only about the nerdiest thing one could do on an internet forum, so you should be proud.

In closing, I am willing to use the words "obtain safety" from now on simply because it is a better explanation; glad I found it in those quotes. However, a better way of saying something doesn't invalidate the essence of the inalienable right that I have been talking about. The right for human beings to obtain safety is inalienable. Big difference? Anything changed as far as the topic goes? Not really...

If you must know, I didn't think of the right to "obtain" safety, because I think that, for the purposes of this discussion, the right to self-defense says it all. But it would be disingenuous, when the very issue we are debating here is legal semantics, to allow you to get away with something that is just not there, just as I have tried to do with MichaelEdwards.

And to be frank, as you have, I find it interesting that though I prove my point to even your satisfaction, you feel the need to attack me personally. That is nothing more than showing the fact that your ego is more important than honest intellectual debate. It's the debate version of, "So, you're still a poopy-head."

Besides, I offered more substantial showing of the right to self-defense as a legal right, much more than you did. Therefore, I would say that I added more substantial content to this discussuion then you did.

 

[Cruentus]

And to be frank, as you have, I find it interesting that though I prove my point to even your satisfaction, you feel the need to attack me personally. That is nothing more than showing the fact that your ego is more important than honest intellectual debate. It's the debate version of, "So, you're still a poopy-head."

You didn't prove your point. I proved your point with my links and quotes.

As to attacking you personally? Just calling it like it is. Your sole purpose since you attacked my SEMANTICS has been to try to "prove" that you are somehow "better" then me on an internet forum discussion. I can't think of anything much more nerdy then that.

Besides, I offered more substantial showing of the right to self-defense as a legal right, much more than you did. Therefore, I would say that I added more substantial content to this discussuion then you did.

Yup. Thank you for supporting my above point, and also proving that your ego is also bigger then mine.

 

[Ray]

The discussion began with a report from the UN that there are no laws in the member nations that describe a right to self-defense. No one has refuted or disproved that ascertion.

Everybody has an opinion ... but those opinions are not backed up with international legal framework.

..

So, who is doing the name calling?

You say you have no legal right to defend yourself, so why do you keep trying? You should just give up, no?

 

[Cruentus]

I think that these last few exchanges is my cue to abort this thread. It was a good discussion for awhile, but it would seem that fragile ego's and nerdy, whiny, "I'm better then you" behavior, and a need to try to 'prove' others wrong rather then have an objective discussion has fully taken over.

Nice job those of you who decided to take it there. And "5-0 kenpo;" the last thing you have the justification to do is question my integrity. I have been able to admit fault and when I am wrong many times on this forum and elsewhere. My self-esteem isn't so fragile that I cannot do that. But, I happen to prefer objective discussions where people mutually respect each others viewpoint; not idiot forum flamewars where nerds attack my semantics and my integrity. Why don't you correct my spelling while you are at it.

So, I'm out. Hopefully the next discussion can be a bit more objective, honest, and less nerdy...

C.