Al Sharpton: People Have No Right Having Unregulated Rights

[Quantum Windbag]

You don't have the right to unregulated rights in this country.

Who here wants to argue that you do?

Bring it on, or, accept the fact that Sharpton is absolutely correct with that statement.

Me, care to try and actually prove me wrong?

Example:

Incitement to riot or to otherwise cause violence is an exercise of free speech if free speech were not able to be constitutionally regulated,

and yet, incitement to riot, aka 'fighting words' can be criminalized and has passed constitutional muster.

So you are wrong.

Why is that idiots that want to talk about rights always bring up stuff that are not rights? If I argued that charging money for a newspaper proves that there is no free press would you agree, or think I was incredibly stupid? Anyone that knows anything about free speech considers discussions of incitement to violence to be the same level of stupidity. I suggest you educate yourself before you post about free speech again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I didn't read the OP all the way through. What I did read however, didn't make much sense.

As to the quote by the Rev. Al Sharpton, those who think they DO have a right to unregulated rights aren't paying attention.

Start with this fact: Your rights end where mine begin.

You have the right to smoke cigarettes, pipes, cigars, dandelion leaves.

I have the right to NOT breathe the carcinogens and stink of whatever it is that you're smoking.

You have the right to own guns.

I have the right to be safe from you and your guns.

We have regulations because "you" believe you have the right to blow smoke at me and carry a gun on your hip.

Your rights do not include the right to demand I comply with your interpretationof rights. Or did you forget that the stupid argument that might rights end where yours begin actually works against you?

You have the right to walk away if you do not like what I am smoking, you do not have the right to demand I stop just because you came to where I work.

I have the right to own guns, you have no right to be safe, period. If you did you would have 24 hour police protection, and even then they could not guarantee your right to be safe. Your delusion that you have non existent rights has no legal bearing on my rights, and doesn't concern me enough to force me to ignore your non existent rights.

I dare you to visit Arkansas and demand that anyone that is smoking and wearing a gun recognize your right to be safe from either and/or both.

XXXXXXX

This is the guy that challenged everyone to a debate.

 

[rdean]

[Like the child afraid of going into his bed at night because of the fear of some unknown lurking under his bed in the darkness, we as a people should have been concerned at what lurked in the masses of darkness waiting for their chance at us.
It just took the election to the presidency of a man schooled by a Communist as a child, who had no apprehensions about appointing at least two individuals seriously enamored with Communist Chinese Party Chairman Mao Tse Tung to positions of power in his government to bring them all out of hiding.
We should all take note of these pseudo Americans, these wolves in sheep's clothing, who are now busy tripping and falling over each other in their efforts to aid and assist Barack Obama into making America over into a Communist dictatorship. This period will not end well for America, and like Santa Claus, making his list of who's been naughty and who's been nice, we need to be making our lists of these subversives, now that they've obligingly thrown off their cloaks of citizenship and respectability letting us see what they really are. After its all over, Al should be sent to a re education camp specializing in stretching exercises, rope and necks.]

“People do not have the right to unregulated rights in this country,” Sharpton continued. “And I think that for those that use the Second Amendment [they] are conceding that they have no argument on why you need a magazine with 100 rounds of ammunition or 30 rounds of ammunition.”"

Sharpton On Second Amendment: ?People Do Not Have The Right To Unregulated Rights In This Country?? | Weasel Zippers

We have no right to rape or kill at will? Oops.

 

[whitehall]

Sharpton should still be doing time for his role in inciting the shooting and arson murder of Jewish merchants in Harlem.

 

[OKTexas]

I didn't read the OP all the way through. What I did read however, didn't make much sense.

As to the quote by the Rev. Al Sharpton, those who think they DO have a right to unregulated rights aren't paying attention.

Start with this fact: Your rights end where mine begin.

You have the right to smoke cigarettes, pipes, cigars, dandelion leaves.

I have the right to NOT breathe the carcinogens and stink of whatever it is that you're smoking.

You have the right to own guns.

I have the right to be safe from you and your guns.

We have regulations because "you" believe you have the right to blow smoke at me and carry a gun on your hip.

Your rights do not include the right to demand I comply with your interpretationWRONG. I don't write the laws. of rights. Or did you forget that the stupid argument that might rights end where yours begin actually works against you?

You have the right to walk away if you do not like what I am smoking, you do not have the right to demand I stop just because you came to where I work.WRONG. I don't write the rules where you work.

I have the right to own guns, you have no right to be safe, period. If you did you would have 24 hour police protection, and even then they could not guarantee your right to be safe. Your delusion that you have non existent rights has no legal bearing on my rights, and doesn't concern me enough to force me to ignore your non existent rights.

I dare you to visit Arkansas and demand that anyone that is smoking and wearing a gun recognize your right to be safe from either and/or both.WRONG AGAIN.

XXXXXXX

OKTexas

My carrying a gun has no effect on you, unless of course you do something really stupid and put me or others in danger, but that's a whole different discussion.

So far, all the big he-man types have run away from these mass-shootings like little girls at the first sign of gunfire. I'm not real concerned that THAT will suddenly change. I suspect the big talk will continue and the gun nutters will always disappear when anyone is in real danger.

Please don't feel bad about that. Its actually A Good Thing. Look at what happens (gun shows ... for starters) when the gun nutters start playing with their pricks, er, uh, I mean, guns. The last thing we need is more people getting killed protecting the lily white buhinds of the nutters as they disappear. Its best if they all just stay under their beds where they belong.

Bottom line to the question of rights is we all have them and your rights end where my nose begins and vice versa.

I haven't ran form a damn thing concerning the shootings, I just blame those who deserve it, like adults that fail to keep firearms away from unstable children. They are in such a minority that they are a statistical zero in the overall scheme of gun ownership. Yet you attempt to paint all gun owners with the same broad brush, which says you have no intellectual honesty or your an ideologue with an agenda. Personally I say both are true statements concerning you.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Please don't feel bad about that. Its actually A Good Thing. Look at what happens (gun shows ... for starters) when the gun nutters start playing with their pricks, er, uh, I mean, guns. The last thing we need is more people getting killed protecting the lily white buhinds of the nutters as they disappear. Its best if they all just stay under their beds where they belong.

and you thanked Carbine for saying Katz is stupid?....geezus......

 

[NYcarbineer]

We used to have slavery, that doesn't make it right.

So if a 15 year old with a criminal record wanted to buy a machine gun and take it to school with him every day,

you wouldn't oppose that? You wouldn't want any laws that would restrict that?

If the government decided a 72 hour cooling off period was reasonable for both abortions and buying guns, would that be fine with you?

Unregulated gun rights would mean that a 15 year old with a criminal record could buy a machine gun and take it to school with him.

The applicable regulations that you believe are unconstitutional are

1. an age limit to purchase a weapon

2. the 1986 ban on automatic weapons

3. prohibiting convicted criminals from buying weapons

4. a background check to determine whether or not a person falls into the category of 3 above.

5. laws prohibiting or limiting the possession of firearms on school property.

If you believe rights cannot be regulated constitutionally (in principle) then you believe none of the above should exist.

Can you agree or disagree with the above without further duck and dodge, or shall we consider the argument over,

you lose?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Me, care to try and actually prove me wrong?

Example:

Incitement to riot or to otherwise cause violence is an exercise of free speech if free speech were not able to be constitutionally regulated,

and yet, incitement to riot, aka 'fighting words' can be criminalized and has passed constitutional muster.

So you are wrong.

Why is that idiots that want to talk about rights always bring up stuff that are not rights? If I argued that charging money for a newspaper proves that there is no free press would you agree, or think I was incredibly stupid? Anyone that knows anything about free speech considers discussions of incitement to violence to be the same level of stupidity. I suggest you educate yourself before you post about free speech again.

Laws against incitement to riot are in fact regulations limiting free speech. The first Amendment does not put any such explicitly stated and/or defined limit on free speech.

The first Amendment does not say Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, unless you're inciting a riot...[/B]

...the first Amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,

and that's it. It says you cannot abridge the freedom of speech. Just like it says you cannot infringe on the right to bear arms. But we all know that speech can be regulated, such as taking away the protection of the 1st amendment if one is inciting a riot, as one example.

That has been decided by interpretation of the 1st amendment despite there being no mention of incitement, riots, fighting words, etc.

YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO UNREGULATED RIGHTS. PERIOD.



Your attempt to say that free speech can't be regulated, except where it can be regulated, is a kneeslapper.

You lose the argument. Anyone else want to try?

 

[NYcarbineer]

We used to have slavery, that doesn't make it right.

So if a 15 year old with a criminal record wanted to buy a machine gun and take it to school with him every day,

you wouldn't oppose that? You wouldn't want any laws that would restrict that?

If the government decided a 72 hour cooling off period was reasonable for both abortions and buying guns, would that be fine with you?

Oh, while I'm at it,

was that a 'yes' or a 'no'??

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So if a 15 year old with a criminal record wanted to buy a machine gun and take it to school with him every day,

you wouldn't oppose that? You wouldn't want any laws that would restrict that?

If the government decided a 72 hour cooling off period was reasonable for both abortions and buying guns, would that be fine with you?

Unregulated gun rights would mean that a 15 year old with a criminal record could buy a machine gun and take it to school with him.

The applicable regulations that you believe are unconstitutional are

1. an age limit to purchase a weapon

2. the 1986 ban on automatic weapons

3. prohibiting convicted criminals from buying weapons

4. a background check to determine whether or not a person falls into the category of 3 above.

5. laws prohibiting or limiting the possession of firearms on school property.

If you believe rights cannot be regulated constitutionally (in principle) then you believe none of the above should exist.

Can you agree or disagree with the above without further duck and dodge, or shall we consider the argument over,

you lose?

Funny how you didn't answer my question, do you support a 72 hour waiting period for abortions? Should they be restricted to endangering the health of the mother, with Catholic Priests the final arbiters on whether or not the medical claim is legitimate?

By the way, feel free to point out anyplace on this forum I ever supported anything you just argued that I should think are perfectly reasonable. I am pretty sure most people will tell you I am an anarchist. Since you can't find me ever supporting the government, pointing to things you think only an insane person would oppose to make your point just makes you look silly to me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Example:

Incitement to riot or to otherwise cause violence is an exercise of free speech if free speech were not able to be constitutionally regulated,

and yet, incitement to riot, aka 'fighting words' can be criminalized and has passed constitutional muster.

So you are wrong.

Why is that idiots that want to talk about rights always bring up stuff that are not rights? If I argued that charging money for a newspaper proves that there is no free press would you agree, or think I was incredibly stupid? Anyone that knows anything about free speech considers discussions of incitement to violence to be the same level of stupidity. I suggest you educate yourself before you post about free speech again.

Laws against incitement to riot are in fact regulations limiting free speech. The first Amendment does not put any such explicitly stated and/or defined limit on free speech.

The first Amendment does not say Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, unless you're inciting a riot...[/B]

...the first Amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,

and that's it. It says you cannot abridge the freedom of speech. Just like it says you cannot infringe on the right to bear arms. But we all know that speech can be regulated, such as taking away the protection of the 1st amendment if one is inciting a riot, as one example.

That has been decided by interpretation of the 1st amendment despite there being no mention of incitement, riots, fighting words, etc.

YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO UNREGULATED RIGHTS. PERIOD.



Your attempt to say that free speech can't be regulated, except where it can be regulated, is a kneeslapper.

You lose the argument. Anyone else want to try?

Trying to defend your idiocy by pointing out how ignorant you are doesn't really help.

Try this little concept on for size, there is a difference between speech and the right of free speech. Speech is an activity, free speech is the power to speak against those who have power.

What has happened over time is that the definition of free speech has been expanded to include things that are not, normally, considered free speech. This is more a recognition that the exercise of our other rights includes the ability to speak about things that are not necessarily free speech issues. This includes things like blasphemy, and even calling other people names.

This has resulted in some complicated legal issues as the government, realizing just how much power speech gives to citizens, constantly tries to take it away from us. That does not make everything the government regulates regarding speech a free speech issue, it just makes it look that way to the uninformed among us.

Like I told you the first time, educate yourself.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So if a 15 year old with a criminal record wanted to buy a machine gun and take it to school with him every day,

you wouldn't oppose that? You wouldn't want any laws that would restrict that?

If the government decided a 72 hour cooling off period was reasonable for both abortions and buying guns, would that be fine with you?

Oh, while I'm at it,

was that a 'yes' or a 'no'??

That must have been a no, because you refuse to admit that the "right" to an abortion can be regulated.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the government decided a 72 hour cooling off period was reasonable for both abortions and buying guns, would that be fine with you?

Unregulated gun rights would mean that a 15 year old with a criminal record could buy a machine gun and take it to school with him.

The applicable regulations that you believe are unconstitutional are

1. an age limit to purchase a weapon

2. the 1986 ban on automatic weapons

3. prohibiting convicted criminals from buying weapons

4. a background check to determine whether or not a person falls into the category of 3 above.

5. laws prohibiting or limiting the possession of firearms on school property.

If you believe rights cannot be regulated constitutionally (in principle) then you believe none of the above should exist.

Can you agree or disagree with the above without further duck and dodge, or shall we consider the argument over,

you lose?

Funny how you didn't answer my question, do you support a 72 hour waiting period for abortions? Should they be restricted to endangering the health of the mother, with Catholic Priests the final arbiters on whether or not the medical claim is legitimate?

By the way, feel free to point out anyplace on this forum I ever supported anything you just argued that I should think are perfectly reasonable. I am pretty sure most people will tell you I am an anarchist. Since you can't find me ever supporting the government, pointing to things you think only an insane person would oppose to make your point just makes you look silly to me.

You didn't answer my question.

Are you now denying that you disagreed with Sharpton's assertion?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the government decided a 72 hour cooling off period was reasonable for both abortions and buying guns, would that be fine with you?

Oh, while I'm at it,

was that a 'yes' or a 'no'??

That must have been a no, because you refuse to admit that the "right" to an abortion can be regulated.

Let me remind you that in post 27 you took the position that we have a right to unregulated rights in this country.

I've proven to you that you are wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Unregulated gun rights would mean that a 15 year old with a criminal record could buy a machine gun and take it to school with him.

The applicable regulations that you believe are unconstitutional are

1. an age limit to purchase a weapon

2. the 1986 ban on automatic weapons

3. prohibiting convicted criminals from buying weapons

4. a background check to determine whether or not a person falls into the category of 3 above.

5. laws prohibiting or limiting the possession of firearms on school property.

If you believe rights cannot be regulated constitutionally (in principle) then you believe none of the above should exist.

Can you agree or disagree with the above without further duck and dodge, or shall we consider the argument over,

you lose?

Funny how you didn't answer my question, do you support a 72 hour waiting period for abortions? Should they be restricted to endangering the health of the mother, with Catholic Priests the final arbiters on whether or not the medical claim is legitimate?

By the way, feel free to point out anyplace on this forum I ever supported anything you just argued that I should think are perfectly reasonable. I am pretty sure most people will tell you I am an anarchist. Since you can't find me ever supporting the government, pointing to things you think only an insane person would oppose to make your point just makes you look silly to me.

You didn't answer my question.

Are you now denying that you disagreed with Sharpton's assertion?

I did answer your question, you are just so stupid you don't understand that, by taking the position that rights are not subject to regulation, my position is that rights are not subject to regulation. Unless you can force me to declare that they are, there is no need for me to say anything.

Which, by the way, applies to you also. Nice to know you support regulating abortion, and that you won't complain the next time someone proposes a fetal person hood amendment. I am sure your parents would be proud of you, if they hadn't aborted all their children.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh, while I'm at it,

was that a 'yes' or a 'no'??

That must have been a no, because you refuse to admit that the "right" to an abortion can be regulated.

Let me remind you that in post 27 you took the position that we have a right to unregulated rights in this country.

I've proven to you that you are wrong.

Where did you do that? Did I say something after that post about restricting rights, or did I just explain how you saying something is a right doesn't make it one? If I say I have a right to free coffee from Starbucks does that mean I get free coffee, or does it just mean I am spouting nonsense?

 

[gallantwarrior]

[Like the child afraid of going into his bed at night because of the fear of some unknown lurking under his bed in the darkness, we as a people should have been concerned at what lurked in the masses of darkness waiting for their chance at us.
It just took the election to the presidency of a man schooled by a Communist as a child, who had no apprehensions about appointing at least two individuals seriously enamored with Communist Chinese Party Chairman Mao Tse Tung to positions of power in his government to bring them all out of hiding.
We should all take note of these pseudo Americans, these wolves in sheep's clothing, who are now busy tripping and falling over each other in their efforts to aid and assist Barack Obama into making America over into a Communist dictatorship. This period will not end well for America, and like Santa Claus, making his list of who's been naughty and who's been nice, we need to be making our lists of these subversives, now that they've obligingly thrown off their cloaks of citizenship and respectability letting us see what they really are. After its all over, Al should be sent to a re education camp specializing in stretching exercises, rope and necks.]

“People do not have the right to unregulated rights in this country,” Sharpton continued. “And I think that for those that use the Second Amendment [they] are conceding that they have no argument on why you need a magazine with 100 rounds of ammunition or 30 rounds of ammunition.”"

Sharpton On Second Amendment: ?People Do Not Have The Right To Unregulated Rights In This Country?? | Weasel Zippers

That statement alone makes it glaringly clear why any of use needs large capacity magazines.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why is that idiots that want to talk about rights always bring up stuff that are not rights? If I argued that charging money for a newspaper proves that there is no free press would you agree, or think I was incredibly stupid? Anyone that knows anything about free speech considers discussions of incitement to violence to be the same level of stupidity. I suggest you educate yourself before you post about free speech again.

Laws against incitement to riot are in fact regulations limiting free speech. The first Amendment does not put any such explicitly stated and/or defined limit on free speech.

The first Amendment does not say Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, unless you're inciting a riot...[/B]

...the first Amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,

and that's it. It says you cannot abridge the freedom of speech. Just like it says you cannot infringe on the right to bear arms. But we all know that speech can be regulated, such as taking away the protection of the 1st amendment if one is inciting a riot, as one example.

That has been decided by interpretation of the 1st amendment despite there being no mention of incitement, riots, fighting words, etc.

YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO UNREGULATED RIGHTS. PERIOD.



Your attempt to say that free speech can't be regulated, except where it can be regulated, is a kneeslapper.

You lose the argument. Anyone else want to try?

Trying to defend your idiocy by pointing out how ignorant you are doesn't really help.

Try this little concept on for size, there is a difference between speech and the right of free speech. Speech is an activity, free speech is the power to speak against those who have power.

What has happened over time is that the definition of free speech has been expanded to include things that are not, normally, considered free speech. This is more a recognition that the exercise of our other rights includes the ability to speak about things that are not necessarily free speech issues. This includes things like blasphemy, and even calling other people names.

This has resulted in some complicated legal issues as the government, realizing just how much power speech gives to citizens, constantly tries to take it away from us. That does not make everything the government regulates regarding speech a free speech issue, it just makes it look that way to the uninformed among us.

Like I told you the first time, educate yourself.

You can jabber away incoherently all you want but you're not going to win this argument with such nonsense.

Freedom of speech, if unregulated, would mean freedom of all speech.

We do not have freedom of all speech in this country.

Why? Because REGULATIONS remove the freedom of speech protections from some forms of speech.

Therefore, we do not have a right to unregulated free speech. Nor do we have an unregulated right to bear arms.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That must have been a no, because you refuse to admit that the "right" to an abortion can be regulated.

Let me remind you that in post 27 you took the position that we have a right to unregulated rights in this country.

I've proven to you that you are wrong.

Where did you do that? Did I say something after that post about restricting rights, or did I just explain how you saying something is a right doesn't make it one? If I say I have a right to free coffee from Starbucks does that mean I get free coffee, or does it just mean I am spouting nonsense?

You are talking nonsense. You are suffering from the condition where you think what you're saying makes sense, but it only makes sense to you.

 

[gallantwarrior]

You don't have the right to unregulated rights in this country.

Who here wants to argue that you do?

Bring it on, or, accept the fact that Sharpton is absolutely correct with that statement.

What exactly is an "unregulated right"?