California gun-control laws cut flow

Nemo said:
No. Rights exist only by law.
Click to expand...
Evenif that is you understanding...

to infringe is to encroach on a right or privilege or to violate...Dictionary..
The usual understanding is that infringe means to encroach upon or narrow the right in any way and that the purpose for the "shall not be infringed" language was to prevent regulation of the right.

You can't just make shit up to suit your own bias and antiAmerican beliefs.
 
bravo said:
Evenif that is you understanding...

to infringe is to encroach on a right or privilege or to violate...Dictionary..
The usual understanding is that infringe means to encroach upon or narrow the right in any way and that the purpose for the "shall not be infringed" language was to prevent regulation of the right.

You can't just make shit up to suit your own bias and antiAmerican beliefs.
Click to expand...

I am not making it up; that’s the way it is. Let me also make myself clear on this subject. I’m not a proponent of the Second Amendment because it doesn’t grant any rights. I am a very serious gun owner. (I have a lot of time and money invested in guns and their use.) I am in favor of less regulation; and for that reason I was not happy with the Supreme Court making a decision that can only lead to more gun laws, more regulation, and the lessening of our rights. If what we want is less regulation, then the last thing we want to do is to federalize the issue, as experience has shown that Congress is obsessed with regulating everything. Here, the gun lobby (and the NRA) have misrepresented us, for in attempting to make gun ownership an "individual" right under the Second Amendment they have made the rights of all gun owners less secure. The way to go is not the Second Amendment - that was intended to be a limitation on the power of Congress over state militias under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, and not a grant of right for individual ownership of firearms - the way to go is as individual rights retained by the people under the Ninth Amendment, and powers reserved to the several states or the people under the Tenth Amendment. At least at the state level we will have more say about our rights, which we won't have in the Congress. It is time that we, as gun owners, stop beating our heads against the wall and start using our brains.
 
Nemo said:
I am not making it up; that’s the way it is. Let me also make myself clear on this subject. I’m not a proponent of the Second Amendment because it doesn’t grant any rights. I am a very serious gun owner. (I have a lot of time and money invested in guns and their use.) I am in favor of less regulation; and for that reason I was not happy with the Supreme Court making a decision that can only lead to more gun laws, more regulation, and the lessening of our rights. If what we want is less regulation, then the last thing we want to do is to federalize the issue, as experience has shown that Congress is obsessed with regulating everything. Here, the gun lobby (and the NRA) have misrepresented us, for in attempting to make gun ownership an "individual" right under the Second Amendment they have made the rights of all gun owners less secure. The way to go is not the Second Amendment - that was intended to be a limitation on the power of Congress over state militias under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, and not a grant of right for individual ownership of firearms - the way to go is as individual rights retained by the people under the Ninth Amendment, and powers reserved to the several states or the people under the Tenth Amendment. At least at the state level we will have more say about our rights, which we won't have in the Congress. It is time that we, as gun owners, stop beating our heads against the wall and start using our brains.
Click to expand...
I disagree entirely with your assessment that the 2A only deals with the militia when it specifically mentions the rights of the people, along with the rest of the BOR. Further, your premise that rights are not a birth right is contrary to 230+ years of American history with regard to that.
 
No, that is incorrect; as our own history attests. The framers of the Constitution created a "nation of laws and not men." Our rights exist only by law, and not otherwise. Indeed, it cannot be otherwise.
 
Nemo said:
No, that is incorrect; as our own history attests. The framers of the Constitution created a "nation of laws and not men." Our rights exist only by law, and not otherwise. Indeed, it cannot be otherwise.
Click to expand...
No, YOU have it backwards. The laws stem from our rights, and are to safeguard them from abuse.
 
No. Your premise is incorrect. (Indeed, it is basis of the faulty thinking of most Americans.) Rights can only exist within the structure of organized society subject to the rule of law. Indeed, there can be no society without the law; it is the very fabric of social structure. It is, like the air we breathe, pervasive and essential, affecting every aspect of human relationships and endeavors. Beyond this lies only the uncertainty of uncivilized life where there is no society, where every man is a law unto himself; and life, as Hobbes put it, is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1651). How much greater are rights in society, and the more so for their guaranty by the social contract that is our Constitution. The law is the only means by which real rights may be secured.
 
Nemo said:
No. Your premise is incorrect. (Indeed, it is basis of the faulty thinking of most Americans.) Rights can only exist within the structure of organized society subject to the rule of law. Indeed, there can be no society without the law; it is the very fabric of social structure. It is, like the air we breathe, pervasive and essential, affecting every aspect of human relationships and endeavors. Beyond this lies only the uncertainty of uncivilized life where there is no society, where every man is a law unto himself; and life, as Hobbes put it, is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1651). How much greater are rights in society, and the more so for their guaranty by the social contract that is our Constitution. The law is the only means by which real rights may be secured.
Click to expand...

Not everyone subscribes to Hobbes' view. It is your opinion that it is true, but I do not share your belief. Robert Nozick proposed that corporations would arise from the state of nature to provide protection (e.g. of property rights), and that over time these corporations would monopolize and become a government without coercion.

Furthermore, according to Locke, natural law (reason) would be the governing force in the state of nature.

So your statement, "Your premise is incorrect" is itself incorrect. Until it can be demonstrated, it is merely a theory.
 
Nemo said:
No. Your premise is incorrect. (Indeed, it is basis of the faulty thinking of most Americans.) Rights can only exist within the structure of organized society subject to the rule of law. Indeed, there can be no society without the law; it is the very fabric of social structure. It is, like the air we breathe, pervasive and essential, affecting every aspect of human relationships and endeavors. Beyond this lies only the uncertainty of uncivilized life where there is no society, where every man is a law unto himself; and life, as Hobbes put it, is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1651). How much greater are rights in society, and the more so for their guaranty by the social contract that is our Constitution. The law is the only means by which real rights may be secured.
Click to expand...
yours is the viewpoint of the totalitarian, the positivist view of the constitution, that if a right isn't specifically mentioned, then it doesn't exist, and that no right is absolute, but shall have it's limits and restrictions defined by the current views and situations of the times. It is a false premise and one that the founders vehemently denied.
 
Nemo said:
No. Your premise is incorrect. (Indeed, it is basis of the faulty thinking of most Americans.) Rights can only exist within the structure of organized society subject to the rule of law. Indeed, there can be no society without the law; it is the very fabric of social structure. It is, like the air we breathe, pervasive and essential, affecting every aspect of human relationships and endeavors. Beyond this lies only the uncertainty of uncivilized life where there is no society, where every man is a law unto himself; and life, as Hobbes put it, is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1651). How much greater are rights in society, and the more so for their guaranty by the social contract that is our Constitution. The law is the only means by which real rights may be secured.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the board... Have some fun, sometimes it takes a thick internet "skin" to do this.
 
What rights? Beyond the law there is only savagery - where Kraft macht Recht (“might makes right”) - that is the state of natural law. Natural rights are but cold comfort when they can be taken away with impunity. You will learn for yourself the true nature and source of your rights when you have need to enforce them. (You will find that you need have a legal basis for your rights - quoting John Locke will get you nowhere in court!) Even God-given rights are only good in heaven. In this world, one need have recourse to the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top