My knowledge base isn't an issue here; it is your unique thought process where you pontificating upon a subject that you admittingly know little to nothing about isn't defined as demonstrating ignorance.
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.
There is no enforceable right to "enjoy life". When you are miserable, what government entity are you going to bring action upon to remedy the situation?
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.
Again, you have no understanding what rights are, their action and how they are enforced.
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. You, in fact, are scrabbling for supportive legal detail in the face of basic rights which you cannot even acknowledge.
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.
Simple possession of arms and their lawful carriage (e.g., a concealed weapons permit or open carry) does not impact the rights of others.
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.
There are tens of thousands of gun laws that impact the manufacture, distribution, sale, possession and use of guns. You see the people who obey the law as a threat; you have a serious and very dangerous complex.
Of course not- you're guilty of contextomy.
I can't imagine any place in the USA where he would not have broken a law. If he were in an area open to hunting and obtained all necessary licenses and permits, he was especially responsible for responsible use and danger / harm inflicted down range. You swearing out a complaint and the proper prosecution of this person would have been the recourse for his breach of the hunting code and perhaps local laws (not necessarily what you perceive to be your right to sun yourself under a tree).
Taking my gun away because of the actions of this moron is not a proper enforcement of your rights; it is a violation of mine.
Unfortunately for your defence- there are simply too many such morons. They make the world a dangerous place.
As an aside, if you were in an area open to hunting it is always a good idea to wear some hunter orange when you are out and about. My property abuts a very large tract of land open to public hunting and whenever I am in those woods during hunting seasons I wear safety orange.
Our purposes for being ' in the woods ' are clearly at odds. I wouldn't want to be seen.
There are 80,000,000 gun owners in the USA; your need to label them a threat and danger to you speaks more to your mental state than to the actual level of threat from them. I feel sorry for you.
Eighty million, eh ? The sooner they hand them in the less congestion there will be.
Well then, I would argue you have failed as a parent and a citizen of the USA (which, the more I read, the more I think you are a British subject).
Working for the safety of children is not a failure- and nationality is of no importance in cyberspace.
Except it's not your "duty".
Sure it is.
Neither is it within your prerogative to utilize the political process to forcibly disarm citizens, unless you are intent on inflicting your prejudices and hate and violating the rights of others:
It's my right to try to change laws as I see fit.
"The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote they depend on the outcome of no elections."
WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD of EDUCATION v. BARNETTE, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)
Opinion.
Arms are property, the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right and the citizens possession and use of arms is a long recognized liberty.
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.
So, tough shit, you have no right, duty or power to restrict my rights . . . That you endeavor to do so while claiming to cherish rights just demonstrates how much you detest the foundational principles of the US Constitution. That I said earlier that you are arguing out of ignorance was being much too kind; ignorance can be resolved. Your beliefs are instilled, immutable and immune to any reason . . . What's that old saying? You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
Your understanding of the principles of any constitution seems absent.
Liberty is dangerous to fascism- and vice versa.
Well, again you are wrong. Who is liable when your "right to be safe" is violated? Local, state and federal governments have, either through legislation or the courts, indemnified themselves from any action brought by any person for being harmed by a criminal. No government entity is responsible for your safety, no duty to protect you exists even if you are under imminent death threat or have a court order of "protection" (LOL).
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. "
So, the truth is, the police are not there to keep you "safe", except in the most general sense. The only exception, when government agents
are responsible for the safety of a citizen is if that person is in their direct care or custody (because the citizen's ability to act in their own defense is limited by government action, i.e., handcuffs)
.
The Supreme Court has held:
"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. "
DESHANEY v. WINNEBAGO CTY. SOC. SERVS. DEPT., 489 U.S. 189 (1989)
You know what that means?
It means you have no claimable "right to be safe".
You are on your own.
YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY -- AKA "SELF DEFENSE".
The government can not have it both ways -- it can not absolve itself from any responsibility to make or keep you "safe" and then turn around and prohibit or restrict a citizen's ability to defend himself. Self defense is the most foundational of rights and the thought that you think you have the power or right to remove it is just mind boggling.
Folk have a fundamental right to safety, that is
everybody .
International law is very clear;
' The concept (
erga omnes )was recognized in the International Court of Justice's decision in the Barcelona Traction case [(Belgium v Spain) (Second Phase) ICJ Rep 1970 3 at paragraph 33]:
"… an essential distinction should be drawn between the obligations of a State towards the international community as a whole, and those arising vis-à-vis another State in the field of diplomatic protection. By their very nature, the former are the concern of all States. In view of the importance of the rights involved, all States can be held to have a legal interest in their protection; they are obligations erga omnes. [at 34] Such obligations derive, for example, in contemporary international law, from the outlawing of acts of aggression, and of genocide, as also from the principles and rules concerning the basic rights of the human person, including protection from slavery and racial discrimination. Some of the corresponding rights of protection have entered into the body of general international law . . . others are conferred by international instruments of a universal or quasi-universal character."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erga_omnes '
You are trumped, I believe.
Folk should be ridding themselves of any national government which holds that they do NOT have a right to safety.
