Your knowledge is as much an ' issue ' as mine. Quite obviously it will be Constitutional lawyers who hold the authority in such debates and laymens' opinions- that's us- that form the padding.
I'm quoting "constitutional lawyers"; the most important being the Supreme Court of the USA who's word is final on the meaning of the Constitution and its action allowing or binding government. You just disagreeing with me and saying I'm wrong without any useful or authoritative basis for your opinion is not too compelling.
In any sane society the right to freedom and enjoyment of life is taken for granted. Governments which want to dispense with such rights are quickly removed. You look rather silly attempting to suggest that anybody has claimed any ' right to personal happiness '. It demonstrates the weakness of your case. ' Safety ' is a much stronger requirement.
I'm just quoting and replying specifically to what you write . . . you said that people have "a right to enjoy life" . . . My answer to
that was succinct and legally correct for the US; there is no enforceable right to "enjoy life". The claim of a "right" means that there is a government entity on the other side that is liable for any breach of said right. As I asked, "what government entity are you going to bring action upon to remedy the situation?" Who are you going to sue to bring about or reclaim your happiness?
You appear to be totally devoid of any sense of erga omnes , duty to the law which is unwritten yet supported by the highest courts.
Not by US courts. I understand that a duty owed to society in general is not extended to the individual. Whatever collectivist 'international court' claptrap you wish to throw out does not abrogate what is called in the USA, the
PUBLIC DUTY DOCTRINE. US courts have been boringly consistent in reaffirming ".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." --
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).
You, in fact, are scrabbling for supportive legal detail in the face of basic rights which you cannot even acknowledge.
I have given you the relevant case law in the USA, I'm hardly scrabbling it is well known, easy to find and verify. It is you who can't make a sound argument because there is none to bring . . . In the USA, government agents owe no duty to individual citizens to protect them from danger or to immediately act to protect an individual even from imminent danger. Whatever protection government agents can be said to owe "society," it is only to society as a whole -- and that duty to society is not, under US law, defined or recognized as an individual "right".
Currently, there exists a ' right ' to be armed- but this ' right ' is subject to a myriad of differing state laws. These laws exist to protect the rights of others.
The laws that prohibit the simple possession of a firearm do not protect the rights of any citizen; they only make those in power more comfortable by restricting the rights of citizens. I have no problem with laws criminalizing actual behavior like brandishing a firearm or threatening someone with it or actually shooting at someone when there's no threat to your or others life or limb and of course, the laws against murder I support.
Of course. That's the nature of civilisation.
You missed the point; that's how the right to arms is balanced with the rights of your fellow man.
You didn't make any such ' point ' and if you're trying to make it now then I'm laughing at the attempt.
You chopped the red part of what I wrote and divorced what remained from your original statement. That you can not maintain continuity of argument and fail to see points that I make, is not my fault. You were talking about how gun control laws "protect the rights of others". I said I didn't agree; that laws on simple possession don't protect any rights of others because simple lawful possession is not a threat to anyone. I then listed the types of laws that I do feel protect the public -- laws that criminalize
actual behavior with guns that
is a threat to others. That was my point -- feel free to disagree with it -- but don't make the silly statement that I didn't make it.
And here you double down on missing things . . .
I think that it does. People deserve to be assured that nobody around them has the means to slaughter them- according to how such a potential mass-slayer might be feeling at the time. YOU say it wouldn't happen- I say it's a desperately silly claim.
So, you do feel legal, permitted carriers are a threat because the public doesn't know who has the means to slaughter them . . .
When I said that "you see the people who obey the law as a threat; you have a serious and very dangerous complex" you came back with:
Of course not- you're guilty of contextomy.
Amusing that you throw out such an accusation . . . being that you are such a case study of contextomy. . .
Unfortunately for your defence- there are simply too many such morons. They make the world a dangerous place.
All the more reason for good people to be armed for defense.
Our purposes for being ' in the woods ' are clearly at odds. I wouldn't want to be seen.
Whatever . . .
Eighty million, eh ? The sooner they hand them in the less congestion there will be.
Molon labe.
Working for the safety of children is not a failure- and nationality is of no importance in cyberspace.
When your endeavors seek to violate the rights of US citizens and your opinions (borne out of that contempt for US law) demand the abrogation of the US Constitution, the fact that you are an English subject just relegates your opinion to that of a amusing, impotent curiosity.
Those are the words of the Supreme Court and that, my kooky Limey friend, is the law of the land.
The term ' arms ' must be clearly defined. Supporting ownership of modern military hardware could not have been foreseen by the authors of the Constitution- themselves subject to error like everybody else.
Protected arms has been defined -- those of any type that compose the regular military equipment and are effective in warfare, and/or of a type that can be advantageously used by the citizens in their common defense and/or of a type in common use by the citizens at the time.
You desire to restrict ownership of the types of arms that meet the protection criteria best . . . Congratulations! It isn't too often somebody is so damn wrong.
The authors of the Constitution didn't give us the right, The right exists because "We the People" never gave government any power to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen. Besides, the framers spoke of what they considered an ideal situation regarding armed citizens . . . They thought that every government "standing army" soldier should be opposed by 17-20 armed citizens with the same types of arms as the government in their hands.
Your understanding of the principles of any constitution seems absent.
LOL
Folk have a fundamental right to safety, that is everybody .
Not as individuals . . .
International law is very clear;
When the topic is the US Constitution and US law there is no more ridiculous and less effective argument that what Europeans think of it and what International law says about it.
You are trumped, I believe.
You are hopelessly deluded.
You have a better chance of seeing our sweet merciful Jesus riding sidesaddle on a rainbow farting Unicorn, than making a single winning point
