SHOOTING at the OLYMPICS

[tk471138]

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.

There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946


"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24

[Hood]

Originally Posted by tk471138

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.

There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946


"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24

It seems a bit odd to me that you're relying on provisions granted by what was then in effect the government of the day, yet complain when the government of these days wants to restrict it. Times and people change, well some of them.

Government's make laws and governments can change the constitution. All it needs is the appropriate public or political will to make it happen. That's one of the the things about living in a democracy - sometimes you have to accept what other people want.

Hood

[ctec1]

@ Hood:

The US is a republic not a democracy. The Republic is a costitutionally-limited form of government protecting the rights of the individual. The Constitution is the fundamental law of the land. It can be changed only thru the amendment process. It's a little more involved than a 51%-49% majority that would suffice in a democracy.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by Hood

Government's make laws and governments can change the constitution. All it needs is the appropriate public or political will to make it happen. That's one of the the things about living in a democracy - sometimes you have to accept what other people want.

Some of what you say is correct, at least down here in OZ (though I don't know how it works in say, the US or UK) but the motion to change the constitution (in Oz) has to go to a referrendum, (public vote). Government gets to word the changes, and at least, its probably why not many changes to the constitution down here has gone through. Citizen Initiated Referrendum was done away with through legislation.

Originally Posted by tk471138

The issue is of explosive power because when President Nixon initiated the War on Drugs in A.D. 1971, ~

It goes back a bit earlier than that to when hemp was outlawed in the US and countries growing selling it faced aid denial if they didn't fall in line... and even earlier before that, to "the prohibition" (of alcohol - US)

[tk471138]

Originally Posted by Hood

It seems a bit odd to me that you're relying on provisions granted by what was then in effect the government of the day, yet complain when the government of these days wants to restrict it. Times and people change, well some of them.

Government's make laws and governments can change the constitution. All it needs is the appropriate public or political will to make it happen. That's one of the the things about living in a democracy - sometimes you have to accept what other people want.

Hood

first of all govt DO NOT grant rights....(well unless you are a slave they dont)

nor are they or should they be in the business of taking away creator endowed rights...

DUDE i have already stated this ONCE we DO NOT live in a democracy...the whims of the majority have NO bearing on my innate rights and freedom....the majority can not decide all of a sudden to take the rights of the minority away...and even if such a law were to pass, it would be null and void...

[Hood]

Originally Posted by tk471138

first of all govt DO NOT grant rights....(well unless you are a slave they dont)

nor are they or should they be in the business of taking away creator endowed rights...

DUDE i have already stated this ONCE we DO NOT live in a democracy...the whims of the majority have NO bearing on my innate rights and freedom....the majority can not decide all of a sudden to take the rights of the minority away...and even if such a law were to pass, it would be null and void...

Governments do grant rights or they allow the existence of an assumed right. Governements in most first world countries make the law, nobody else does (with a few exceptions). The US government allows you to keep your rights. See what rights a citizen has in the USA - freedom of speech is a good start.

Creator endowed rights? This presupposes the existence of a "creator" doesn't it? As I'm not religious this kinda passes me by. There are no natural "rights" at all - there is no supreme being saying "Thou shalt have the ability to munch popcorn on a Saturday." At least, not in my eyes. Now if you think a creator gave you "rights", and I say it/he/she etc didn't, that leaves a thorny problem doesn't it.

On a reflective note I do sometimes wish that I had enough faith to justify a religion. But I don't.

And you do live in a democracy, such as it it. If you feel so angry about it you can of course take your guns and march on the White House. I'll keep watching the news for it.

As for von Pilsner's post, he got it pretty much right. Its a trade off between safety and order. Sure you can do whatever you like but then there is anarchy. Or you can conform with society's "rules" and accept restrictions for safety's sake. Simple really.

Hood

[tk471138]

Originally Posted by Hood

Governments do grant rights or they allow the existence of an assumed right. Governements in most first world countries make the law, nobody else does (with a few exceptions). The US government allows you to keep your rights. See what rights a citizen has in the USA - freedom of speech is a good start.

Creator endowed rights? This presupposes the existence of a "creator" doesn't it? As I'm not religious this kinda passes me by. There are no natural "rights" at all - there is no supreme being saying "Thou shalt have the ability to munch popcorn on a Saturday." At least, not in my eyes. Now if you think a creator gave you "rights", and I say it/he/she etc didn't, that leaves a thorny problem doesn't it.

On a reflective note I do sometimes wish that I had enough faith to justify a religion. But I don't.

And you do live in a democracy, such as it it. If you feel so angry about it you can of course take your guns and march on the White House. I'll keep watching the news for it.

As for von Pilsner's post, he got it pretty much right. Its a trade off between safety and order. Sure you can do whatever you like but then there is anarchy. Or you can conform with society's "rules" and accept restrictions for safety's sake. Simple really.

Hood

wow yet another....misinformed sheep, that thinks that their rights are granted by govt....

the reason it says creator endowed rights (here we go again restating what i already said) means that it comes from an authority HIGHER than govt....your creator can be Allah, Jesus, Yahweh, your parents, who ever......

sorry but the highest LAW in MY land says otherwise....you are wrong...perhaps you are beholden to your govt and its whims but i am not....

lol and people keep saying that i live in a democracy....as if this notion of mob rule, and being subject to the whims of the majority is a good thing....


i guess if the majority vote to take your property, i guess that means you must submit....

democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner...


why dont you post law and case law that proves your collectivist dogma....o wait i seem to be the only one who can do that....


if you rely on your govt to ALLOW you to exercise your innate rights or freedom then you have the status of a slave on the land, beholden to their master....


using actual case law to prove my point....
In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly "The state cannot diminish rights of the people."
And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60, "Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."


our rights are innate meaning even the constitution DOES NOT grant them...our rights and our freedom come from an authority higher than govt....and would exist even if govt didnt....

[Hood]

Originally Posted by tk471138

wow yet another....misinformed sheep, that thinks that their rights are granted by govt....

the reason it says creator endowed rights (here we go again restating what i already said) means that it comes from an authority HIGHER than govt....your creator can be Allah, Jesus, Yahweh, your parents, who ever......

sorry but the highest LAW in MY land says otherwise....you are wrong...perhaps you are beholden to your govt and its whims but i am not....

lol and people keep saying that i live in a democracy....as if this notion of mob rule, and being subject to the whims of the majority is a good thing....


i guess if the majority vote to take your property, i guess that means you must submit....

democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner...


why dont you post law and case law that proves your collectivist dogma....o wait i seem to be the only one who can do that....


if you rely on your govt to ALLOW you to exercise your innate rights or freedom then you have the status of a slave on the land, beholden to their master....

But there is no national authority higher than the government of the land. Ignoring international courts of course. I'm not convinced tht my parents are a higher authority than the governemnt of the UK. Perhaps you'd expand on that? Likewise, I can't see (put your deity of choice here) mulling over sub-clauses and sub-sections in statutes.

If you're taking the creator bit from...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

...then you must be gullible because you've accepted as truth what a bunch of guys in the 1700s said.

If you can prove the existence of a "Creator" then fine, but I can't find anywhere written in the stars that there is any such thing as an unalienable right. There are no such rights except for those "granted" by the government of the day. The funniest thing is that you refer to it as a LAW when laws are what governments make.

So far as guns are concerned, you probably don't even realise that the arms manufacturing lobby is one of the most powerful there is (they probably have more money and better able people than the government) and they're chip-chip-chipping away at you all the time.

It seems to me you've been brainwashed, and that's worse than being a sheep. Prove that you have rights granted by a creator and not created by a bunch of guys in the 1700s that laid down rules how society should operate. You can't. I'd bet that when your rights are infringed by others that you bleat for help.

Oh, and I think the constitution of the USA and the Bill of Rights are amazing things written by some extraordinary people, but they are not immutable. I'd like to re-visit this thread in 100 years.

Hood

ps Baaaaaah

pps I love the case quotes. Who decides what the rights are? People of today or documents created in the 1700s? Who decides what the "plain and obvious principles of common right etc..." are? Right or wrong, it is fallacious to suggest that there are rights and freedoms coming from an authority higher than government. Whoever it/she/he is they haven't stepped in in Rwanda, Iraq, Afghaistan, USA, Nazi Germany, South Africa, Guantanemo Bay, the Soviet Union etc etc etc. But of course in those countries no such rights exist/ed when they were needed so that pokes a large hole through the Creator argument.

[WTE_Galway]

The modern tendency towards Textualism is always a problem with dated legislation, it tends to encode and exaggerate drafting errors and is often used to endorse interpretations completely at odds with the original drafters intent.

[tk471138]

Originally Posted by Hood

But there is no national authority higher than the government of the land. Ignoring international courts of course. I'm not convinced tht my parents are a higher authority than the governemnt of the UK. Perhaps you'd expand on that? Likewise, I can't see (put your deity of choice here) mulling over sub-clauses and sub-sections in statutes.

If you're taking the creator bit from...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

...then you must be gullible because you've accepted as truth what a bunch of guys in the 1700s said. (LAWS AGAINST THEFT AND MURDER ARE THOUSANDS OF YEARS OLD I GUESS THAT MAKES THOSE LAWS DISCREDITED AS WELL HAHA YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE FALLACIOUS AND FOOLISH AT BEST, YOU ARE JUST SPUTING THE SAME KIND OF GARBAGE THAT FREEDOM HATING PEOPLE THE WORLD OVER BRING UP....)

If you can prove the existence of a "Creator" then fine, but I can't find anywhere written in the stars that there is any such thing as an unalienable right. There are no such rights except for those "granted" by the government of the day. The funniest thing is that you refer to it as a LAW when laws are what governments make.

So far as guns are concerned, you probably don't even realise that the arms manufacturing lobby is one of the most powerful there is (they probably have more money and better able people than the government) and they're chip-chip-chipping away at you all the time.

It seems to me you've been brainwashed, and that's worse than being a sheep. Prove that you have rights granted by a creator and not created by a bunch of guys in the 1700s that laid down rules how society should operate. You can't. I'd bet that when your rights are infringed by others that you bleat for help.

Oh, and I think the constitution of the USA and the Bill of Rights are amazing things written by some extraordinary people, but they are not immutable. I'd like to re-visit this thread in 100 years.

Hood

ps Baaaaaah

pps I love the case quotes. Who decides what the rights are? People of today or documents created in the 1700s? Who decides what the "plain and obvious principles of common right etc..." are? Right or wrong, it is fallacious to suggest that there are rights and freedoms coming from an authority higher than government. Whoever it/she/he is they haven't stepped in in Rwanda, Iraq, Afghaistan, USA, Nazi Germany, South Africa, Guantanemo Bay, the Soviet Union etc etc etc. But of course in those countries no such rights exist/ed when they were needed so that pokes a large hole through the Creator argument.

wow...lol so i guess not buying into the socialistic and collectivist dogma means im "brainwashed" because i want to enjoy the right to self determination i am "brainwashed"


Freedom is innate because of the fact that human beings enjoy free will. and it has to do with natural law or common law, which is THOUSANDS of years old...(of course their is always an idiot who will say....well these laws are so old so it must not be relevant, to counter this all you have to do is point out many common laws such as those against murder or theft, those are also thousands of years old, much older than the constitution or declaration of independence)

im talking to people who keep bringing up irrelevant topics and reasons why i should abandon freedom, for some false sense of security, or safety....


its clear that you people dont know how law works....its clear that you dont understand how dangerous it is making govt the ultimate authority, which you people think it has....

the govt gets its power from the consent of the governed, thus how can it EVER be higher than the people....people create government, thus govt is subservient to the people...however this idea has been bastardized by our own federal govt, certain elites quest for power...and now they have most of the foolish public believing that the govt needs to protect people from themselves and that we must abandon freedom in the name of a false sense of security....

also for the founders these truths that i am talking about were "self evident" back in the day...i guess this is no longer the case....i guess people now think that safety comes from waiving your rights to some perceived authority....all one has to do is look at history to see the pitfalls of this kind of philosophy...