Al Sharpton: People Have No Right Having Unregulated Rights

[bayoubill]

[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 need folks like Sharpton... if only to prove that GOPpers aren't the only ones capable to saying stupid shit...

 

[bayoubill]

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.

so... you say

You have the right to own guns.

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

so you acknowledge our right to keep guns...

but then follow that with a paranoid statement about keeping yourself safe from us and our guns...


so... what exactly are you proposing...?

 

[bayoubill]

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?

When mentioning "the people" in the Bill of Rights, the Framers were referring to lawful citizens who'd reached the age of majority... and, specific to the Second Amendment, had intended that such lawful citizens have access to the latest developments in small-arms technology...

so...

1. age limit to purchase a weapon...? Constitutional...

2. ban on automatic weapons...? un-Constitutional...

3. prohibiting convicted criminals from buying weapons...? Constitutional...

4. background check to prevent criminals from buying guns...? Constitutional...

5. laws prohibiting or limiting the possession of firearms on school property...? un-Constitutional for lawful citizens...

 

[bripat9643]

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.

I'll argue it, turd. What theory of morality gives government the right to control you? Answer: nothing credible.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

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.

Obviously, your rights take precedence over mine.

How could it not be so?

How does someone with a gun on her hip violate your rights? Does the sight make you pee your pants? Do you get the vapors? Do traumatic memories of Marshal Dillon drive you into a frenzy?

Do you actually know anyone who got cancer from second hand smoke? Does smelling tobacco smoke make you pee your pants, too? You do understand that no one actually understand what causes cancer, don't you?

 

[Sallow]

Al Sharpton should just come out and say that only black people should have rights. We all know that's what he means.

Well no.

But thanks for playing.

Please pick up your copy of "The Turner Diaries" on the way out.

It's complimentary.

I can't reach it....too busy tripping all over the karl marx books in your hall and living room.

You're in the wrong hall.

 

[Sallow]

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.

And that position is wrong.

Speech and assembly are regulated all the time.

 

[RoadVirus]

Sharpton shouldn't have the right to spew, see how he would like that?

Lets not forget Tawana Brawley, Rev. al

who listens to this idiot?

sheesh

Sharpton's no idiot.

And he's come a long way since Tawana Brawley..

No he hasn't. He's still a race-baiting moron.

 

[Sallow]

Sharpton shouldn't have the right to spew, see how he would like that?

Lets not forget Tawana Brawley, Rev. al

who listens to this idiot?

sheesh

Sharpton's no idiot.

And he's come a long way since Tawana Brawley..

No he hasn't. He's still a race-baiting moron.

Well no.

Advocating for people isn't "race baiting".

You folks think that people who's rights are violated with impunity should just be complacent.

And that really gets you no where.

 

[Katzndogz]

Al Sharpton should just come out and say that only black people should have rights. We all know that's what he means.

Is it true that you actually consider yourself one of the more intelligent conservatives on this board?

I've heard that, but I'm puzzled as to why that never manages to manifest itself in any of your posts.

Like the one above.

It was really Mary Frances Berry, head of the Civil Rights Commission that first said that civil rights do not apply to white people. I merely lifted it from her.

Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them." -- Mary Frances Berry, Chairwoman, US Commission on Civil Rights
Urban Dictionary: White guilt

 

[Katzndogz]

Sharpton shouldn't have the right to spew, see how he would like that?

Lets not forget Tawana Brawley, Rev. al

who listens to this idiot?

sheesh

Sharpton's no idiot.

And he's come a long way since Tawana Brawley..

No he hasn't. He's still a race-baiting moron.

You don't have to go as far back as Twyana Brawley. Just as far back as the Duke La Crosse case.

 

[Sallow]

Sharpton's no idiot.

And he's come a long way since Tawana Brawley..

No he hasn't. He's still a race-baiting moron.

You don't have to go as far back as Twyana Brawley. Just as far back as the Duke La Crosse case.

And?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Sharpton's no idiot.

And he's come a long way since Tawana Brawley..

No he hasn't. He's still a race-baiting moron.

Well no.

Advocating for people isn't "race baiting".

You folks think that people who's rights are violated with impunity should just be complacent.

And that really gets you no where.

Al is pretty selective on what he backs.....if there is nothing in it for him he stays away.....yesterday on the local news here about the Mexican Gangs trying to force blacks to leave the area.....a pissed black guy was wondering why Al or Jessie is not here with this shit and another in the background said ...they are afraid the gangs will target them thats why....and the piece ended right there.....

 

[Sallow]

No he hasn't. He's still a race-baiting moron.

Well no.

Advocating for people isn't "race baiting".

You folks think that people who's rights are violated with impunity should just be complacent.

And that really gets you no where.

Al is pretty selective on what he backs.....if there is nothing in it for him he stays away.....yesterday on the local news here about the Mexican Gangs trying to force blacks to leave the area.....a pissed black guy was wondering why Al or Jessie is not here with this shit and another in the background said ...they are afraid the gangs will target them thats why....and the piece ended right there.....

So?

Most advocates are..why is the onus on Sharpton to be any different?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Sharpton's no idiot.

And he's come a long way since Tawana Brawley..

No he hasn't. He's still a race-baiting moron.

Well no.

Advocating for people isn't "race baiting".

You folks think that people who's rights are violated with impunity should just be complacent.

And that really gets you no where.

"We folks" do not, but you apparently do because that is exactly what you are advocating. You just think you should be allowed to pick and choose whose rights are violated.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Well no.

Advocating for people isn't "race baiting".

You folks think that people who's rights are violated with impunity should just be complacent.

And that really gets you no where.

Al is pretty selective on what he backs.....if there is nothing in it for him he stays away.....yesterday on the local news here about the Mexican Gangs trying to force blacks to leave the area.....a pissed black guy was wondering why Al or Jessie is not here with this shit and another in the background said ...they are afraid the gangs will target them thats why....and the piece ended right there.....

So?

Most advocates are..why is the onus on Sharpton to be any different?

because for all his talk about the plight of his people......he doesnt give a rats ass about the blacks in the inner cities.....unless there are white people involved in the situation against blacks.....Al dont give a rats ass about his people like he claims he does.....hows that for starters?....

 

[gallantwarrior]

Al is pretty selective on what he backs.....if there is nothing in it for him he stays away.....yesterday on the local news here about the Mexican Gangs trying to force blacks to leave the area.....a pissed black guy was wondering why Al or Jessie is not here with this shit and another in the background said ...they are afraid the gangs will target them thats why....and the piece ended right there.....

So?

Most advocates are..why is the onus on Sharpton to be any different?

because for all his talk about the plight of his people......he doesnt give a rats ass about the blacks in the inner cities.....unless there are white people involved in the situation against blacks.....Al dont give a rats ass about his people like he claims he does.....hows that for starters?....

He's also a no-show if the press coverage isn't there.

 

[Harry Dresden]

So?

Most advocates are..why is the onus on Sharpton to be any different?

because for all his talk about the plight of his people......he doesnt give a rats ass about the blacks in the inner cities.....unless there are white people involved in the situation against blacks.....Al dont give a rats ass about his people like he claims he does.....hows that for starters?....

He's also a no-show if the press coverage isn't there.

there is that too....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

It would? Can you actually cite anything, other than your delusions, to support that the right of freedom of speech means what you claim?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

It also makes sense to lawyers, and judges, which is why a ruling was handed down in People v Golb that it does not violate the First Amendment to prosecute someone for impersonating an actual person via email. Free speech is not the same as speech, just like me slapping you in the face doesn't violate due process.