texas court makes new law out of thin air, negates a right of the people

Flash said:
That is because you are one of the few who believe the Bill of Rights are absolute and cannot be regulated.
Click to expand...
False equivalence fallacy. No one is arguing the Bill of Rights is nothing but inherent rights. It is not an exhaustive list of rights either.
Flash said:
Do you believe, for example, that the 1st freedom of the press cannot prohibit pictures of child pornography or allow libel laws?
Click to expand...
The 1st amendment prohibits the federal government from passing laws banning pictures of child pornography or pass any libel law.
Flash said:
These are both regulations although the 1st says "no law" which is as absolute as "shall not be infringed."
Click to expand...
Neither are absolute rights. False equivalence fallacy. States may pass laws concerning libel or child pornography. The 1st amendment does not apply to the States and is not binding on them.
Flash said:
Do you also think convicted murderers shall have the same rights to own and carry weapons as everybody else?
Click to expand...
They already do.
 
Flash said:
That is because you are one of the few who believe the Bill of Rights are absolute and cannot be regulated.
Click to expand...
rights that are 'regulated' are not rights, but privileges. It is the height of stupidity to believe that the frarmers and colonists would give power to a new government to 'regulate' their rights after having won independence from a government that 'regulated' their rights.

Flash said:
Do you believe, for example, that the 1st freedom of the press cannot prohibit pictures of child pornography or allow libel laws? These are both regulations although the 1st says "no law" which is as absolute as "shall not be infringed."
Click to expand...
A common misconception that the whole 'rights can be regulated' crowd is the idea that absolute rights mean you can do any damn thing you please............where you got that bullshit idea is probably based in the mental disease that is liberalism. Individual rights are absolute because they don't include the ability to infringe on the rights of others...........but i'm sure you'll find some idiocy that you'll believe justifies your position.

Flash said:
Do you also think convicted murderers shall have the same rights to own and carry weapons as everybody else?
Click to expand...

if they can't be trusted with a weapon, they can't be trusted in public. If a convicted murderer or rapist is allowed back in to society again, it should be done with the belief that they will not offend again and have all of their rights restored. Otherwise, they should remain incarcerated.
 
Flash said:
That is not an opinion. It is the law. Unless they want to completely ban weapons, any jurisdiction can pass about any gun control law wanted and many states have done so (assault weapon bans, background checks, etc.). Those jurisdictions that don't have such laws is because they choose politically not to do so---it is not because the 2nd has been interpreted in a way to prevent these regulations.
Click to expand...

given this position, then, it should stand to reason that threats of violent rebellion would make it too politically expensive to make gun laws, right?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
rights that are 'regulated' are not rights, but privileges. It is the height of stupidity to believe that the frarmers and colonists would give power to a new government to 'regulate' their rights after having won independence from a government that 'regulated' their rights.
Click to expand...


They didn't include those rights at all. The Bill of Rights was only added after the Constitution was ratified as a deal to get opponents to ratify it. They did not think any of those restrictions on federal power were necessary.

SmarterthanYou said:
A common misconception that the whole 'rights can be regulated' crowd is the idea that absolute rights mean you can do any damn thing you please............where you got that bullshit idea is probably based in the mental disease that is liberalism. Individual rights are absolute because they don't include the ability to infringe on the rights of others...........but i'm sure you'll find some idiocy that you'll believe justifies your position.
Click to expand...

What keeps you from being able to do any damn thing you please by publishing pictures of child pornography or infringing on the rights of others? Criminal laws prevent you from doing that. A criminal law making it illegal to publish child pornography is a regulation. Therefore, you argue against your own case.

You say our rights (free press) cannot be regulated but then claim those rights can be restricted. When the 1st says "no law" shall abridge free press you are saying laws can abridge (infringe) the right of a person to publish child pornography. In your definition, that means free press is a privilege and not a right.

You are simply agreeing with the views of most Americans and posters who believe our rights are not absolute and can be restricted and those restrictions are based on court interpretation.
 
Flash said:
What keeps you from being able to do any damn thing you please by publishing pictures of child pornography or infringing on the rights of others? Criminal laws prevent you from doing that. A criminal law making it illegal to publish child pornography is a regulation. Therefore, you argue against your own case.
Click to expand...
ridiculous argument. Are you saying that if those laws didn't exist, people would have the right to publish child pornography?????

Flash said:
You say our rights (free press) cannot be regulated but then claim those rights can be restricted. When the 1st says "no law" shall abridge free press you are saying laws can abridge (infringe) the right of a person to publish child pornography. In your definition, that means free press is a privilege and not a right.

You are simply agreeing with the views of most Americans and posters who believe our rights are not absolute and can be restricted and those restrictions are based on court interpretation.
Click to expand...

you are confused on what rights are. especially given the fact that I've told you that your rights don't allow you to harm others.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
ridiculous argument. Are you saying that if those laws didn't exist, people would have the right to publish child pornography?????
Click to expand...

If it was a right that could not be abridged then the laws would not exist because government would declare them unconstitutional--that is what a right means.

SmarterthanYou said:
you are confused on what rights are. especially given the fact that I've told you that your rights don't allow you to harm others.
Click to expand...

Yes, you cannot harm others because criminal laws prevent it. Those are regulations of our rights.

Assume the child pornography consists of pictures of nude children not engaged in any sexual activities taken by their parents. Whose rights are being harmed if those pictures are published? What if it is computer generated child pornography not involving any real children--whose rights are being harmed.

You see examples of behavior which you do not approve of but refuse to admit that behavior can be regulated if it is one of our rights. Is "hate speech" harming others? It cannot be regulated.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
its clear that you have nothing left but to make up lies when you've been bested by a better man.
Click to expand...

Someone that claims to be a better man wouldn't have been dishonorably discharged nor think it's OK to drive drunk and it only be addressed after innocent people have died.
 
CFM said:
Someone that claims to be a better man wouldn't have been dishonorably discharged nor think it's OK to drive drunk and it only be addressed after innocent people have died.
Click to expand...

that dishonorable discharge is your wishful thinking, because it's not happened. and to be a crime it has to have a victim. no accident, no victim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top