Constitutional Rights

[5-0 Kenpo]

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.

I have to say, I'm confused.

1. I prove my point, even to the person who I proved incorrect.

2. I'm attacked personally for proving my point.

3. I defend my honor from said attack.

4. Am further attacked for defending myself.

Sincerely, MichaelEdwards, thank you for an honest debate. Though we have disagreed, at least you were a worthy opponent.

 

[michaeledward]

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

Ray ... this is not about what I say. This is what is called an 'ad hominem' attack.

The thread was started by a article at the United Nations.

The United Nations surveyed their members ~ and the member nations do not have laws spelling out and declaring a "right" to self-defense. The member nations will acknowlege that self-defense is a justification to avoid prosecution or sentencing if one person eliminates another persons right to life in self-defense.




5-0 Kenpo .. I would ask you to review the United Nations member list, here. http://www.un.org/members/list.shtml ... the States you referenced are not on that list.

 

[terryl965]

[playnice]TerryStoker[/playnice]

 

[elder999]

I’ve let this go on for seven pages without saying anything, and, with all due respect to you as a person, Michael-and one I often agree with, you’re completely out to lunch on this one. Your arguments are specious, fallacious, disingenuous and sometimes seem to be downright dishonest. I’ll cover them backwards, and point out that this post, split off from another thread, is what started this thread and not, as you’ve (dishonestly?) misstated, the U.N.’s declaration on self-defense.

As for the U.N.-I’ll just say that

Self defense is a primary civil-right.

Our Founding Fathers did not create our civil liberties-the very heart and soul of our personal and national lives. They secured those liberties. They safeguarded them. The Bill of Rights is our guarantee of freedom-it doesn’t enumerate our rights-it points out those rights that the government can’t mess with-if you look at the language, that’s the format it follows-“Congress shall make no law…..”

Humankind had freedom of expression as a natural right. Europeans had freedom of religion expression before reaching the shores of this country, as did the Native Americans. Even though the right to religious expression has been continually and systematically denied the human race for centuries, it has been ours to assert; it has been our right to secure.

All these great rights are ours. All these rights are the machinery that propels this Republic. Take away one right, weaken one civil liberty, and the machine starts sputtering-as it is now, tearing itself apart like an engine that’s thrown a rod-as it is now, grinding to a halt and leaving us stranded on the side of the road, a road patrolled only by a mob.

Then there’s that Second Amendment. Could it be that the Founding Fathers, after protecting religious freedom, freedom of speech, and a free press, then set about to protect hunting? Could it be that the Founding Fathers, after safeguarding our right to assembly, then hastened to safeguard target shooting?

Perhaps they had states’ rights in mind. They wanted to protect the rights of states to form the militias. A collective right. If the freedom to bear arms is a right of states, where are the cases filed by states? Although they are very few, Second Amendment claims are brought by individuals, not states. The courts have never struck down a single case brought by an individual citizen, because his name was not Alaska or Alabama.

And if the Founding Fathers wanted to guarantee a state right, no one uttered a word about it. If the Second Amendment safeguarded a collective right, it was the best kept secret of the 18th century. No known writing of the period between 17817 and 1791 even suggests that one single American entertained such a notion.

With its tap root in the British common law of self defense (which is now relegated to history, and to what sad effect) the Second Amendment is a right that prevails when, heaven forbid, all else fails. The Second Amendment more than affirms your right to protect yourself and your family; it marks the property line between individual liberty and state sovereignty. The state can do all it can to assure our corporate safety-our “National Security,” but it cannot infringe upon our right to personal safety. If it does, it is not heeding the property line; it is trespassing.

Second Amendment advocates are fond of pointing to Nazi Germany, Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China or Pol Pot’s Cambodia as distant lessons of tyranny that could have been resisted by an armed citizenry. The last century was filled with holocausts, from the Warsaw Ghetto to the killing field of Rwanda.

“Of course, that sort of thing could never happen here.” It’s not as though the government hasn’t already abrogated some of our Constitutional Rights with the USA PATRIOT Act….but, I digress…..

How is it that conservative Republicans can claim the Second Amendment as their own? There’s always been a teeter-totter relationship between an individual’s delicate rights and the state’s overwhelming power. Historically, hasn’t it been liberal Democrats who have always wanted to place the fulcrum in the position that favors the individual?
In the words of a great American:

“Certainly, one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be carefully used, and that definite rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced, but the right of the citizen to bear arms is just one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proven to always be possible.”

This quote isn’t form Newt Gingrich or Rush Limbaugh-not that I’d call them “Great Americans. It’s from the exemplar of postwar American liberalism, former Vice-President Hubert Humphrey. He knew then-and we know today- that we do not have tyranny in this country. I mean, the courts are open, right? The voting booths are open and elections are fair, right?Our rights to unreasonable search and seizure, due process, and freedom of assembly are all protected, so our right to bear arms and defend ourselves must also be- is this not so? And if it isn't, well, what America is it that we're living in? I'd venture it's one where the next step will be to take our guns.....

You’e called the Second Amendment a “minority right,” though it’s a right for all to exercise-it’s true, a small portion of our nation’s population do exercise that right to bear arms. A small portion ever have the reason to exercise their 5th Amendment right not to incriminate themselves, or to a speedy trial-perhaps, by your argument, we should do away with those rights as well?

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Ray ... this is not about what I say. This is what is called an 'ad hominem' attack.

The thread was started by a article at the United Nations.

The United Nations surveyed their members ~ and the member nations do not have laws spelling out and declaring a "right" to self-defense. The member nations will acknowlege that self-defense is a justification to avoid prosecution or sentencing if one person eliminates another persons right to life in self-defense.




5-0 Kenpo .. I would ask you to review the United Nations member list, here. http://www.un.org/members/list.shtml ... the States you referenced are not on that list.

Again, I understand that you are saying that as a separate governmental agency that the State governments are not "members". But what I am saying is that by virtue of being in a member nation, the states are a part of the U.N. Admittedly, if we are just going to concern ourselves with Federal Law, then you may be correct. But the U.S. is in a unique position in the world in that State law is on parity with Federal law.

Now having said that, my point still remains. There are laws within the United States which say that a person has a right to self-defense.

 

[michaeledward]

I’ve let this go on for seven pages without saying anything, and, with all due respect to you as a person, Michael-and one I often agree with, you’re completely out to lunch on this one. Your arguments are specious, fallacious, disingenuous and sometimes seem to be downright dishonest. I’ll cover them backwards, and point out that this post, split off from another thread, is what started this thread and not, as you’ve (dishonestly?) misstated, the U.N.’s declaration on self-defense.

Oh, come on now. ... Don't hold back, tell me how you really feel.

Oh, there were two threads in which I was invovled. One of which got split ... But, my position was being attack (or is that my person was being attacked) in both of the other two prior to the split. If I confused as to which thread was split, and which conversation was which ... well, just hold that against me, too.

 

[elder999]

Oh, come on now. ... Don't hold back, tell me how you really feel.

Oh, there were two threads in which I was invovled. One of which got split ... But, my position was being attack (or is that my person was being attacked) in both of the other two prior to the split. If I confused as to which thread was split, and which conversation was which ... well, just hold that against me, too.

Well, I didn't hold back-I told you how I really feel. And, I used a question mark after "dishonestly?" for just the reason you've pointed out....of course, the other thread didn't get started with the U.N. declaration on self-defense, either..it was the one that asked which candidate would be best for gun owners....really no different than asking which would be best fo pro-lifers, or those in favor of gay marriage, or against it, or any other issue, but somehow you took offense-or, at the very least, your curiosity was aroused by the mere asking of the question...

...still not clear at all on what your position is-the one that was being attacked, that is...

 

[Ray]

Ray ... this is not about what I say. This is what is called an 'ad hominem' attack.

The thread was started by a article at the United Nations.

I didn't attack you.

I must have misunderstood your position, I thought you felt compelled to follow the lead of the UN, or that you actually believed you had no right of self defense. Hence the legitimate question.

This would be an attack: Oh, there you go and pull a Hillary and say I'm attacking you.

But that is not what I said.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Looking through the U.N. Charter, I found this interesting tidbit in Article 51:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

This does actually seem to say that the individual has a right to self-defense, even if only in a limited capacity.