Reply With Quotethe right to life and libertyOriginally Posted by SmarterthanYou
man you must be a russian
Verified User
If you shot a person then he obviously did not have the right not to be shot; or, if he did, it was obviously unenforceable. You can try to deter shooting someone by criminal laws to punish the shooter, but it does not guarantee the person's right not to be shot.
Truthmatters
the right to life and liberty
man you must be a russian
rebel
post 30 and 32, dumbass
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
High Level of Addiction
YAWN SAME NONSENSE.
rebel
yeah, those damn federal courts are full of nonsense
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
High Level of Addiction
No, but you sure are sport. In fact I would say you are very ignorant of your rights and our justice system.
Need's more vacation.
Considering it's illegal to do such, you have the right not to get shot. Of course this is voided if you screw around with guns, and blast yourself by accident.
Verified User
The courts have said Obamacare was constitutional and military conscription too. The courts don't necessarily follow the Constitution, they often like to interpret it with bias and absurd majority opinions.
Government is force by definition and corruption by nature.
"Government is force by definition and corruption by nature. The bigger the government, the greater the force and the greater the corruption."
rebel
or if the government is the one that shoots you. Did you also know that you have no right to not be framed by your government?????
https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...be_framed.html
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
Verified User
No such ENFORCEABLE right exists. Nor does a "right to be safe" or to "feel safe".
Lefties love to wax poetic about this supposed right, "your right to own/carry a gun does not supercede my right to life" or "my right to not be shot" . . . But the reality is, IT DOES!
Courts, all the way to SCOTUS have held that no government agent is responsible for any citizen's safety, even if they have made statements to that effect and/or they know of imminent threats to the person. Whatever protection government agents can be said to owe "society," it is only to society as a whole.
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1, 6 (D.C. App. 1981) is the most often cited case. The noteworthy excerpt:
"[It is] a fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen. "
One's "right to life" is a right to not be killed arbitrarily by a government action.
It is also an immunity from prosecution for justifiable homicide, a right to defend your life with lethal force (self defense).
A government entity/agent can only be held liable for a person's safety or protection if government action has rendered that person incapable of acting in their own behalf (in self defense) either through some custodial circumstance or incarceration.
The Supreme Court held in DESHANEY v. WINNEBAGO CTY. SOC. SERVS. DEPT., 489 U.S. 189 (1989):
" The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf... it is the State's affirmative act of restraining the individual's freedom to act on his own behalf - through incarceration, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty - which is the "deprivation of liberty" triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause, not its failure to act to protect his liberty interests against harms inflicted by other means. "
Many states have passed laws codifying this indemnity; California's Government Code §845 is quite typical:
" Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service. "
The brutal truth for you liberals out there is . . . You have no right to not be criminally assaulted, you have no right to not be shot, you have no right to be or feel safe.
GUN CONTROL LAWS ARE OSHA REGULATIONS FOR VIOLENT CRIMINALS
Verified User
Frank,
He is smarter than a “yew”. Barely
Frank Apisa (03-22-2018)
Verified User
All rights are alienable.
Your creator is not mentioned in the Constitution.
Life is taken away by your government. Looks like they override your creator.
Verified User
The OP's position has nothing to do with the right being unenumerated. It has everything to do with who is held responsible when a legally enforceable right is violated.
Claims that a "right" exists is a statement that one believes the government at some level, is liable for damages for violation of the right.
That is the only benchmark to measure the true existence of a right; if you can bring legal action against a government agency/agent when the right is harmed.
As my earlier post proves, governments at all levels have refused to accept any responsibility for your personal security or criminal breaches of your personal safety (at the hands of a third party).
Therefore, a "right to be safe" or a "right to not be shot" does not exist.
GUN CONTROL LAWS ARE OSHA REGULATIONS FOR VIOLENT CRIMINALS
Verified User
What happened?
Where did everybody go?
GUN CONTROL LAWS ARE OSHA REGULATIONS FOR VIOLENT CRIMINALS
rebel
it's unsettling for most people to be shown the reality that their government isn't their benevolent protector, or that they are actually going to be beholden to fulfilling their constitutionally assigned role. It's why most posts of mine are ridiculed or met with insults.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
Posting Rules
Bookmarks