Political Crossfire Forums

[wyldejackyl]

Exactly. Once again, the anti-gun side confuses rights with privileges. Amendments 1-10 are rights, and cannot be forsaken (although they are every day- that should tell you where we're headed).

[airo]

wyldejackyl wrote: Exactly. Once again, the anti-gun side confuses rights with privileges. Amendments 1-10 are rights, and cannot be forsaken (although they are every day- that should tell you where we're headed).

Actually, Life, Liberty, and Private Property are rights.

The first 10 amendments are the essential tools required to protect those rights.

[bigstick61]

The rights represented in the Bill of Rights, along with a few others covered by the 10th Amendment, all in fact originate from the rights to life liberty, and property. These are the most fundamental rights; without these rights, it would be impossible to say that more specific ones exist.

[britboy]

bigstick61 wrote: The rights represented in the Bill of Rights, along with a few others covered by the 10th Amendment, all in fact originate from the rights to life liberty, and property. These are the most fundamental rights; without these rights, it would be impossible to say that more specific ones exist.

Rubbish. In the UK we don't have the constitution or the bill of rights.

My right to free speech exists.

Sorry!

(Whats funny is we have gone hundreds of years without our government oppressing us -- but still people say .. 'er .. wait another 50 .. its a matter of time .. if it doesn't happen when you're 80 years old -- just wait another 50 years .. it's just around the corner you know ...'. talk about paranoid! How many hundreds of years do we have to wait for this mad crazy 'repression' you keep harping on about? 200 years? 500 years?)

[airo]

britboy wrote: bigstick61 wrote: The rights represented in the Bill of Rights, along with a few others covered by the 10th Amendment, all in fact originate from the rights to life liberty, and property. These are the most fundamental rights; without these rights, it would be impossible to say that more specific ones exist.

Rubbish. In the UK we don't have the constitution or the bill of rights.

My right to free speech exists.

Sorry!

(Whats funny is we have gone hundreds of years without our government oppressing us -- but still people say .. 'er .. wait another 50 .. its a matter of time .. if it doesn't happen when you're 80 years old -- just wait another 50 years .. it's just around the corner you know ...'. talk about paranoid! How many hundreds of years do we have to wait for this mad crazy 'repression' you keep harping on about? 200 years? 500 years?)

Funny... the rest of the world has hardly gone hundreds of years without YOUR government oppressing them. It must be nice.

Hitler was a great ruler as well... if you were German and had blond hair and blue eyes.

[britboy]

airo wrote: britboy wrote: bigstick61 wrote: The rights represented in the Bill of Rights, along with a few others covered by the 10th Amendment, all in fact originate from the rights to life liberty, and property. These are the most fundamental rights; without these rights, it would be impossible to say that more specific ones exist.

Rubbish. In the UK we don't have the constitution or the bill of rights.

My right to free speech exists.

Sorry!

(Whats funny is we have gone hundreds of years without our government oppressing us -- but still people say .. 'er .. wait another 50 .. its a matter of time .. if it doesn't happen when you're 80 years old -- just wait another 50 years .. it's just around the corner you know ...'. talk about paranoid! How many hundreds of years do we have to wait for this mad crazy 'repression' you keep harping on about? 200 years? 500 years?)

Funny... the rest of the world has hardly gone hundreds of years without YOUR government oppressing them. It must be nice.

Hitler was a great ruler as well... if you were German and had blond hair and blue eyes.



Back to the point .. Airo -- someone suggested that without the constitution/bill of rights they would have no rights at all.

I would suggest this is incorrect as, for example, the UK has neither of these documents yet we have plenty of rights.

Slightly different rights from the US -- we get to drink at 18, you get to carry a loaded gun around (believe me, I preferred the beer - but thats irrelevent). but the guy was saying NO CONSTITUTION = NO RIGHTS. Do you agree with this?

[lilwolf]

britboy wrote: airo wrote: britboy wrote: bigstick61 wrote: The rights represented in the Bill of Rights, along with a few others covered by the 10th Amendment, all in fact originate from the rights to life liberty, and property. These are the most fundamental rights; without these rights, it would be impossible to say that more specific ones exist.

Rubbish. In the UK we don't have the constitution or the bill of rights.

My right to free speech exists.

Sorry!

(Whats funny is we have gone hundreds of years without our government oppressing us -- but still people say .. 'er .. wait another 50 .. its a matter of time .. if it doesn't happen when you're 80 years old -- just wait another 50 years .. it's just around the corner you know ...'. talk about paranoid! How many hundreds of years do we have to wait for this mad crazy 'repression' you keep harping on about? 200 years? 500 years?)

Funny... the rest of the world has hardly gone hundreds of years without YOUR government oppressing them. It must be nice.

Hitler was a great ruler as well... if you were German and had blond hair and blue eyes.



Back to the point .. Airo -- someone suggested that without the constitution/bill of rights they would have no rights at all.

I would suggest this is incorrect as, for example, the UK has neither of these documents yet we have plenty of rights.

Slightly different rights from the US -- we get to drink at 18, you get to carry a loaded gun around (believe me, I preferred the beer - but thats irrelevent). but the guy was saying NO CONSTITUTION = NO RIGHTS. Do you agree with this?


But you still do not have the right to just own a gun unless you really fight for it and then you might not get it at all.....right?

Also, how come you can get in trouble for just saying something on the street where here we still have free speech.

And you still have no bill of rights that quarentees you certain rights no matter what.

[britboy]

lilwolf wrote: britboy wrote: airo wrote: britboy wrote: bigstick61 wrote: The rights represented in the Bill of Rights, along with a few others covered by the 10th Amendment, all in fact originate from the rights to life liberty, and property. These are the most fundamental rights; without these rights, it would be impossible to say that more specific ones exist.

Rubbish. In the UK we don't have the constitution or the bill of rights.

My right to free speech exists.

Sorry!

(Whats funny is we have gone hundreds of years without our government oppressing us -- but still people say .. 'er .. wait another 50 .. its a matter of time .. if it doesn't happen when you're 80 years old -- just wait another 50 years .. it's just around the corner you know ...'. talk about paranoid! How many hundreds of years do we have to wait for this mad crazy 'repression' you keep harping on about? 200 years? 500 years?)

Funny... the rest of the world has hardly gone hundreds of years without YOUR government oppressing them. It must be nice.

Hitler was a great ruler as well... if you were German and had blond hair and blue eyes.



Back to the point .. Airo -- someone suggested that without the constitution/bill of rights they would have no rights at all.

I would suggest this is incorrect as, for example, the UK has neither of these documents yet we have plenty of rights.

Slightly different rights from the US -- we get to drink at 18, you get to carry a loaded gun around (believe me, I preferred the beer - but thats irrelevent). but the guy was saying NO CONSTITUTION = NO RIGHTS. Do you agree with this?


But you still do not have the right to just own a gun unless you really fight for it and then you might not get it at all.....right?

Also, how come you can get in trouble for just saying something on the street where here we still have free speech.

And you still have no bill of rights that quarentees you certain rights no matter what.


Quote: but the guy was saying NO CONSTITUTION = NO RIGHTS. Do you agree with this?

??

[airo]

britboy wrote: airo wrote: britboy wrote: bigstick61 wrote: The rights represented in the Bill of Rights, along with a few others covered by the 10th Amendment, all in fact originate from the rights to life liberty, and property. These are the most fundamental rights; without these rights, it would be impossible to say that more specific ones exist.

Rubbish. In the UK we don't have the constitution or the bill of rights.

My right to free speech exists.

Sorry!

(Whats funny is we have gone hundreds of years without our government oppressing us -- but still people say .. 'er .. wait another 50 .. its a matter of time .. if it doesn't happen when you're 80 years old -- just wait another 50 years .. it's just around the corner you know ...'. talk about paranoid! How many hundreds of years do we have to wait for this mad crazy 'repression' you keep harping on about? 200 years? 500 years?)

Funny... the rest of the world has hardly gone hundreds of years without YOUR government oppressing them. It must be nice.

Hitler was a great ruler as well... if you were German and had blond hair and blue eyes.



Back to the point .. Airo -- someone suggested that without the constitution/bill of rights they would have no rights at all.

I would suggest this is incorrect as, for example, the UK has neither of these documents yet we have plenty of rights.

Slightly different rights from the US -- we get to drink at 18, you get to carry a loaded gun around (believe me, I preferred the beer - but thats irrelevent). but the guy was saying NO CONSTITUTION = NO RIGHTS. Do you agree with this?

And your government has only recently (Relative to it's entire history) given up the idea of tyranny.

Again, just because things have been fine for YOU specifically, this does not mean that has been the status quo for those living under your government's rule.

[britboy]

airo wrote: britboy wrote: airo wrote: britboy wrote: bigstick61 wrote: The rights represented in the Bill of Rights, along with a few others covered by the 10th Amendment, all in fact originate from the rights to life liberty, and property. These are the most fundamental rights; without these rights, it would be impossible to say that more specific ones exist.

Rubbish. In the UK we don't have the constitution or the bill of rights.

My right to free speech exists.

Sorry!

(Whats funny is we have gone hundreds of years without our government oppressing us -- but still people say .. 'er .. wait another 50 .. its a matter of time .. if it doesn't happen when you're 80 years old -- just wait another 50 years .. it's just around the corner you know ...'. talk about paranoid! How many hundreds of years do we have to wait for this mad crazy 'repression' you keep harping on about? 200 years? 500 years?)

Funny... the rest of the world has hardly gone hundreds of years without YOUR government oppressing them. It must be nice.

Hitler was a great ruler as well... if you were German and had blond hair and blue eyes.



Back to the point .. Airo -- someone suggested that without the constitution/bill of rights they would have no rights at all.

I would suggest this is incorrect as, for example, the UK has neither of these documents yet we have plenty of rights.

Slightly different rights from the US -- we get to drink at 18, you get to carry a loaded gun around (believe me, I preferred the beer - but thats irrelevent). but the guy was saying NO CONSTITUTION = NO RIGHTS. Do you agree with this?

And your government has only recently (Relative to it's entire history) given up the idea of tyranny.

Again, just because things have been fine for YOU specifically, this does not mean that has been the status quo for those living under your government's rule.

but the guy was saying NO CONSTITUTION = NO RIGHTS. Do you agree with this?

[airo]

britboy wrote: airo wrote: britboy wrote: airo wrote: britboy wrote: bigstick61 wrote: The rights represented in the Bill of Rights, along with a few others covered by the 10th Amendment, all in fact originate from the rights to life liberty, and property. These are the most fundamental rights; without these rights, it would be impossible to say that more specific ones exist.

Rubbish. In the UK we don't have the constitution or the bill of rights.

My right to free speech exists.

Sorry!

(Whats funny is we have gone hundreds of years without our government oppressing us -- but still people say .. 'er .. wait another 50 .. its a matter of time .. if it doesn't happen when you're 80 years old -- just wait another 50 years .. it's just around the corner you know ...'. talk about paranoid! How many hundreds of years do we have to wait for this mad crazy 'repression' you keep harping on about? 200 years? 500 years?)

Funny... the rest of the world has hardly gone hundreds of years without YOUR government oppressing them. It must be nice.

Hitler was a great ruler as well... if you were German and had blond hair and blue eyes.



Back to the point .. Airo -- someone suggested that without the constitution/bill of rights they would have no rights at all.

I would suggest this is incorrect as, for example, the UK has neither of these documents yet we have plenty of rights.

Slightly different rights from the US -- we get to drink at 18, you get to carry a loaded gun around (believe me, I preferred the beer - but thats irrelevent). but the guy was saying NO CONSTITUTION = NO RIGHTS. Do you agree with this?

And your government has only recently (Relative to it's entire history) given up the idea of tyranny.

Again, just because things have been fine for YOU specifically, this does not mean that has been the status quo for those living under your government's rule.

but the guy was saying NO CONSTITUTION = NO RIGHTS. Do you agree with this?

Actually, i don't recall him saying anything like that.

He said that our essential rights were Life, Liberty, and Private Property, and without these fundamental rights, we cannot define more specific rights, such as protection against illegal search and seizure.

I've already stated that i slightly disagree with his opinion, that i don't believe the bill of rights actually affords us rights, rather tools to protect our aforementioned essential rights.

I would, however, say that without these tools (Or something similar.), it would have been impossible for us to remain as we have since the creation of our nation, or for us to continue on for the amount of time i believe we have left as a free nation.

[bigstick61]

I did not say that without the Constitution there would be no rights. Read my post again. I said that the rights which are represented in the Bill of Rights, along with a few others which may be deemed natural rights, originate from the fundmanetal natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Without those three fundamental rights, it would be near-impossible to say that the others which are more specific exist; I have always said that rights do not originate from the government, but from somewhere higher.

[Korimyr the Rat]

People only have those rights which they are capable of demanding and enforcing by their force of arms. If you take away their "force of arms", you are capable of taking away any of their other rights as soon as it suits you.

When you give a man your weapon, you are giving him permission to enslave you.

[britboy]

Korimyr the Rat wrote: People only have those rights which they are capable of demanding and enforcing by their force of arms. If you take away their "force of arms", you are capable of taking away any of their other rights as soon as it suits you.

When you give a man your weapon, you are giving him permission to enslave you.

I am not capable of enforcing my right to speech with force of arms. Yet I still have the right to free speech. Therefore you are wrong.

[airo]

britboy wrote: Korimyr the Rat wrote: People only have those rights which they are capable of demanding and enforcing by their force of arms. If you take away their "force of arms", you are capable of taking away any of their other rights as soon as it suits you.

When you give a man your weapon, you are giving him permission to enslave you.

I am not capable of enforcing my right to speech with force of arms. Yet I still have the right to free speech. Therefore you are wrong. Granted to you by your government, not enforced by yourself.

We've gone over this. Other people who've had the misfortune to fall under the shade of your Government's empire were not so lucky.[img][/img]

[mathurin]

you have the magna carta, which is a precursor to the constitution in many ways, even has a portion garunteeing arms, i think
the biggest difference is that the magna carta was designed as a limit to the kings power, it doesnt say you have this and that right, just that the king cannot do X and Y

while it may or may not be part of current law, it is a part of your governmental system (similarly, the declaration of independence is part of ours, even thought it is not a formal part)


so you are telling me that there was no submission of peasants during those hundreds of years?
freedom has a very short track record when compared to oppression in the history of the world what countries in the past have known the freedom we now have, seriously, i want a list

[lilwolf]

britboy wrote: Korimyr the Rat wrote: People only have those rights which they are capable of demanding and enforcing by their force of arms. If you take away their "force of arms", you are capable of taking away any of their other rights as soon as it suits you.

When you give a man your weapon, you are giving him permission to enslave you.

I am not capable of enforcing my right to speech with force of arms. Yet I still have the right to free speech. Therefore you are wrong.




Does your nation have anything in writing (per say) that really grants or protects your personal rights to free speech.... since you surrendered your rights to really be free to own a weapon ( and did not need to BTW).

[thefranzkafkafront]

britboy wrote: If a completely fair referendum was held in your country deciding whether or not to allow handguns in private hands -- a competely democratic - free vote ..

If the decision went AGAINST your personal view, would you respect the decision and abide by any new rules imposed thereafter, or think 'Who cares what my fellow countrymen have voted for -- I'm gonna fight against this one ..' and break the new law?

?

(US -- er .. the politicians are all united in saying the constitution will be altered if necessary on the basis of this referendum)

How about if a completely fair refurendum was held denying the right of black people to vote?

[britboy]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: britboy wrote: If a completely fair referendum was held in your country deciding whether or not to allow handguns in private hands -- a competely democratic - free vote ..

If the decision went AGAINST your personal view, would you respect the decision and abide by any new rules imposed thereafter, or think 'Who cares what my fellow countrymen have voted for -- I'm gonna fight against this one ..' and break the new law?

?

(US -- er .. the politicians are all united in saying the constitution will be altered if necessary on the basis of this referendum)

How about if a completely fair refurendum was held denying the right of black people to vote?

Naah, I don't think thats a good idea personally.

[thefranzkafkafront]

britboy wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: britboy wrote: If a completely fair referendum was held in your country deciding whether or not to allow handguns in private hands -- a competely democratic - free vote ..

If the decision went AGAINST your personal view, would you respect the decision and abide by any new rules imposed thereafter, or think 'Who cares what my fellow countrymen have voted for -- I'm gonna fight against this one ..' and break the new law?

?

(US -- er .. the politicians are all united in saying the constitution will be altered if necessary on the basis of this referendum)

How about if a completely fair refurendum was held denying the right of black people to vote?

Naah, I don't think thats a good idea personally.

Why not its another example of the majority removing supressing the rights of a minority by the mandate of the many.

If you can ban guns, why not sufferage? Why not freedom of speech.

What makes one a completely ok propisition but another not?

Your faith in the god of democracy is misfounded.