Do our rights come with a responsibility?

[Procrustes Stretched]

What was said in the OP is a common misunderstanding of the Constitutionally protected rights...

My question would be "Why didn't you make that clear early on?"

Why would you assume the OP was misunderstood? Maybe the OP actually believes that? When assuming you make a big mistake .. especially if one cares about the level of debate


names taken... TruthOut10, GuyPinestra, Meathead, Dugdale_Jukes, M14 Shooter, The Rabbi, C_Clayton_Jones, OriginalShroom, DStar777, RetiredGySgt, CrusaderFrank, MisterBeale, BreezeWood, bigrebnc1775, bripat9643, Mr Clean, dblack, Sallow, NYcarbineer, tjvh, hjmick, mudwhistle

22 members @ USMB replied to...

Can the rights given us by our Constitution be abused and...

 

[OriginalShroom]

It has nothing to do with ‘other peoples’ rights.’

There is a First Amendment right to free speech.

If the government wishes to restrict or preempt some form of free speech it must have a compelling reason and be rationally based.

Wishing to prevent injury and death is rational on the part of the government, and a compelling, justified reason; consequently the government is authorized to pass a law punishing someone who yells fire in a theatre, as it is not ‘protected speech.’

The "Government" has no interest in a person shouting "Fire" in a Theatre. If it is empty, who cares? The Government doesn't. The Government has no rights to be infringed upon here.

However, the people who are in the theatre and believe the shouter and then panic which results in injuries and even death definately have an "Interest" in it. As a result the Government placed a limit on that speech. Not because the Government has an interest, (Remember, the Government has no "Rights" ) but because the people do. People whose rights are being infringed upon by that shouter. And it is the Government's job to protect those rights from being infringed upon.

Perhaps this might help:

Substantive due process

A doctrine holding that the 5th and 14th Amendments require all governmental intrusions into fundamental rights and liberties be fair and reasonable and in furtherance of a legitimate governmental interest. The U.S. Supreme Court during the middle of the 20th Century used substantive due process to give added force to the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution by constraining certain actions by law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges.

Substantive due process | LII / Legal Information Institute

If the government limits speech, but its purpose in doing so is not based on the content of the speech, then the limitation on speech may still violate the First Amendment, but it is less likely than a content-based restriction to do so. This is because the Supreme Court applies less than “strict scrutiny” to non-content-based restrictions. With respect to non-content-based restrictions, the Court requires that the governmental interest be significant” or “substantial” or “important,” but not necessarily, as with content-based restrictions, “compelling.” And, in the case of noncontent-based restrictions, the Court requires that the restriction be narrowly tailored, but not, as with content-based restrictions, that it be the least restrictive means to advance the governmental interest.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf

Feel free to do similar searches of your own if interested.

From your own quote.. Perhaps if you had read it a bit more deeply..

substantive due process to give added force to the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments

The only "Government Interest" is in protecting the rights of the Citizens. The Government has no "Rights" in and of itself here.

It is in protecting the rights of the Citizens that the Government can somewhat put a limit on what are "Protected" rights.

Someone earlier was talking about a 1st Amendment right to walk naked in public. The Courts have ruled that strippers have a "1st Amendment Right" to take off their clothes within the confines of the building where the observers are willing participants. Being in public would subject people who are unwilling to see naked people to that sight and it would be a violation of their rights to be subjected to it. Thus a limit on where a person can take off their clothes in public in expressing their 1st Amendment rights.

 

[Connery]

I felt I had a duty to act responsibly and protect the rights that were granted to me by the Constitution. That is the reason I joined the military.

 

[The Rabbi]

That is the point. Did he have such a right? If we read the first amendment, "Congress shall make no law...abriding the freedom of speech" and subsquent USSC decisions which defined expression (for example burning our flag) as protected as speech, one must come to the belief that the example of the naked man is protected under the Constitution.

Do I think such behavior is right, no, because it infringes on others. But my opinion has no not the weight of law.

Your opinion is irrelevant. It is criminal conduct. There is no need for restraint, since it is a criminal activity. And the right is not within the purview of constitutional protection.

Do you even understand what you are talking about?

Rabbi, I know you believe what the hypothetical naked man did was criminal, but your opinion hasn't the weight of the law either. What you have posted would easily be comported into someone offering this opinion, "possessing any firearm which is more powerful and efficient than those in use by the 18th century militia is criminal". And I know you will not understand that either.

Last I checked indecent exposure was still a crime in most places. Maybe in SF they outlawed decent exposure. You should really study up on law enforcement some time.

There is no law about firearms in relation to what they were in the 18th century. Nor is the example responsive to your question, which I suspect you don't understand.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Stephen King wrote and published a novel about a teenage boy who killed his teacher and held his classmates hostage. The Novel, "Rage", was cited as inspirationby perpertrators for a number of mass shootings in the 1980's and 1990's.

The shootings prompted King to withdraw the book from the market. He had every right to exercise his first amendment rights, but did the responsible thing.

What was that? What did he do?

He withdrew the book from the market.

Stephen King?s Essay ?Guns? Takes on Gun Policy, National Dialogue ? IVN Editors? Blog

After? He withdrew his irresponsible story after the damage was done

So what would happen if someone illegally obtained a copy and then went on a killing spree?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Responsibility to show up on time and not delay the line, thereby minimizing individual patients' exposure to filthy lowlife scum harassing decent people standing in line outside?

So.... no, there's no responsibility associated with the right to an abortion.
I guess that answers the question asked in the OP.
Thank you.

Here's the thing, chief; an abortion is a medical procedure. The patient's responsibilities in comparision to the patient's "rights" are identical to those when visiting the dentist or any other medical procedure.

To view an abortion differently, one would have to buy into the notion that laws in the Constitution and notes on medical procedures in the Bible are wrong.

According to the supreme court the Constitution provides rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom FROM government interference in private behaviors including a right "to be let alone", while the Bible, when it mentions punishing abortion at all, suggests small fines as the most severe penalties for abortion - and then only for causing one accidentally in someone else's family.

So all the nutball horseshit notwithstanding, abortion is a long term right in the history of most cultures. Only papist scum got it outlawed in some jurisdictions in America before evangelical scum took over the heavy lifting.

Next.

Uh-huh.
But you'll be happy to tell me there's a responsibility attached to the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I felt I had a duty to act responsibly and protect the rights that were granted to me by the Constitution. That is the reason I joined the military.

you can't be serious? people join for all kinds of reasons, and I hear this one...then get to know the people using it and it ends up to be a bit of a fabrication.

Not saying you or others did not feel that way, but the reason to actually leave home and join...usually (100% as far as people I've spoken with) more complicated.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What was said in the OP is a common misunderstanding of the Constitutionally protected rights...

My question would be "Why didn't you make that clear early on?"

Why would you assume the OP was misunderstood? Maybe the OP actually believes that? When assuming you make a big mistake .. especially if one cares about the level of debate


names taken... TruthOut10, GuyPinestra, Meathead, Dugdale_Jukes, M14 Shooter, The Rabbi, C_Clayton_Jones, OriginalShroom, DStar777, RetiredGySgt, CrusaderFrank, MisterBeale, BreezeWood, bigrebnc1775, bripat9643, Mr Clean, dblack, Sallow, NYcarbineer, tjvh, hjmick, mudwhistle

22 members @ USMB replied to...

Can the rights given us by our Constitution be abused and...

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, all silent of the western front?

 

[PaulS1950]

The OP is obviously uneducated on what rights are and what the constitution says about them. The answers to his poll are also non-sensical.

Our rights are sacrosanct and can never be infringed? The government can't infringe on our rights and neither can the population - however we can lose them by becoming a threat to the population as an individual - being arrested, tried and convicted.

We have a duty to act responsibly? All rights have responsibilities and one's rights end when they infringe upon or endanger another but we have the freedom to act however we want. There are consequences if you abuse the rights.

Individuals have the right to ignore laws they don't like? No such right exists - We have the freedom to ignore a law we don't like but we have to be ready to accept the consequences for doing so. We have the responsibility to disobey unlawful laws and orders. Just because somethingis legal does not mean it is lawful. If a law was passed that demanded silence during the half hour of mid-day prayer it would be an unlawful law. It dismisses the rights of the individual's freedom of speach and associates the legal process with a religious act. We would have a responsibility to speak during that time and to fight the law in every way possible.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Did this question really need to be asked?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The OP is obviously uneducated on what rights are and what the constitution says about them. The answers to his poll are also non-sensical.

Our rights are sacrosanct and can never be infringed? The government can't infringe on our rights and neither can the population - however we can lose them by becoming a threat to the population as an individual - being arrested, tried and convicted.

We have a duty to act responsibly? All rights have responsibilities and one's rights end when they infringe upon or endanger another but we have the freedom to act however we want. There are consequences if you abuse the rights.

Individuals have the right to ignore laws they don't like? No such right exists - We have the freedom to ignore a law we don't like but we have to be ready to accept the consequences for doing so. We have the responsibility to disobey unlawful laws and orders. Just because something is legal does not mean it is lawful. If a law was passed that demanded silence during the half hour of mid-day prayer it would be an unlawful law. It dismisses the rights of the individual's freedom of speach and associates the legal process with a religious act. We would have a responsibility to speak during that time and to fight the law in every way possible.

"The OP is obviously uneducated on what rights are and what the constitution says about them. The answers to his poll are also non-sensical." - problem is your post fits exactly what you've criticized in other posts.

"The government can't infringe on our rights and neither can the population -" - of course they can...they are not supposed to.

"Just because something is legal does not mean it is lawful. If a law was passed that demanded silence during the half hour of mid-day prayer it would be an unlawful law."

you'd better learn a bit more about what terms to uses

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

So.... no, there's no responsibility associated with the right to an abortion.
I guess that answers the question asked in the OP.
Thank you.

Here's the thing, chief; an abortion is a medical procedure. The patient's responsibilities in comparision to the patient's "rights" are identical to those when visiting the dentist or any other medical procedure.

To view an abortion differently, one would have to buy into the notion that laws in the Constitution and notes on medical procedures in the Bible are wrong.

According to the supreme court the Constitution provides rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom FROM government interference in private behaviors including a right "to be let alone", while the Bible, when it mentions punishing abortion at all, suggests small fines as the most severe penalties for abortion - and then only for causing one accidentally in someone else's family.

So all the nutball horseshit notwithstanding, abortion is a long term right in the history of most cultures. Only papist scum got it outlawed in some jurisdictions in America before evangelical scum took over the heavy lifting.

Next.

Uh-huh.
But you'll be happy to tell me there's a responsibility attached to the right to keep and bear arms.

IMO there is personal responsibility to your family and civil liability if you harm someone by accident, but no one is taking my guns - except from my cold, dead fingers. Did I mention none are or ever shall be registered during my lifetime? And that I'll buy and sell as it pleases me.

Valuing the Constitution - especially my right to own guns, my right to the pursuit of happiness, and my right to be let alone by meddling fuckers, is a whole world different than being an anti-American fascist trying to control other people's private lives.

Next you'll be telling me I like Obama. People who make assumptions based on their own sick, twisted pathologies tend to cause more problems than they solve. Think about that and you'll feel bad. Act on it by respecting yourself enough to stay out of the private lives of others and your life gets better every day.

To recap: Next.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

IMO there is personal responsibility to your family and civil liability if you harm someone by accident, but no one is taking my guns - except from my cold, dead fingers. Did I mention none are or ever shall be registered during my lifetime? And that I'll buy and sell as it pleases me.

Valuing the Constitution - especially my right to own guns, my right to the pursuit of happiness, and my right to be let alone by meddling fuckers, is a whole world different than being an anti-American fascist trying to control other people's private lives.

Next you'll be telling me I like Obama. People who make assumptions based on their own sick, twisted pathologies tend to cause more problems than they solve. Think about that and you'll feel bad. Act on it by respecting yourself enough to stay out of the private lives of others and your life gets better every day.

To recap: Next.

You do not value the US Constitution if you so flagrantly violate laws you do not like. We don't get to choose which laws we obey and then get to call ourselves defenders of the Constitution.

You have an ignoramus' view of America and the US Constitution. I'd support the government doing a Ruby Ridge and a Waco on you

cowardly misfits like you destroy America and attempt harm to Law Enforcement who work in our name

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gpod question.
What responsibility is attached to the right to have an abortion?

Responsibility to show up on time and not delay the line, thereby minimizing individual patients' exposure to filthy lowlife scum harassing decent people standing in line outside?

So.... no, there's no responsibility associated with the right to an abortion.
I guess that answers the question asked in the OP.
Thank you.

So you gun rights extremists aren't trying to protect the right to responsible gun ownership by law abiding citizens,

you want to protect the right of anyone to own any gun anytime anyplace, period.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What was said in the OP is a common misunderstanding of the Constitutionally protected rights...

My question would be "Why didn't you make that clear early on?"

Why would you assume the OP was misunderstood? Maybe the OP actually believes that? When assuming you make a big mistake .. especially if one cares about the level of debate


names taken... TruthOut10, GuyPinestra, Meathead, Dugdale_Jukes, M14 Shooter, The Rabbi, C_Clayton_Jones, OriginalShroom, DStar777, RetiredGySgt, CrusaderFrank, MisterBeale, BreezeWood, bigrebnc1775, bripat9643, Mr Clean, dblack, Sallow, NYcarbineer, tjvh, hjmick, mudwhistle

22 members @ USMB replied to...

Can the rights given us by our Constitution be abused and...

I just can't get over it...

 

[Billo_Really]

Can the rights given us by our Constitution be abused and do we have a duty to enjoy our rights responsibly?

It's a little too late for that now. We've already lost those rights, because we have acted irresponsibly. But we can get them back, if we do act responsibly.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Responsibility to show up on time and not delay the line, thereby minimizing individual patients' exposure to filthy lowlife scum harassing decent people standing in line outside?

So.... no, there's no responsibility associated with the right to an abortion.
I guess that answers the question asked in the OP.
Thank you.

So you gun rights extremists aren't trying to protect the right to responsible gun ownership by law abiding citizens,

you want to protect the right of anyone to own any gun anytime anyplace, period.

Given that your statement is not true, I must ask:
Did you just lie, or did you speak from ignorance?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Here's the thing, chief; an abortion is a medical procedure. The patient's responsibilities in comparision to the patient's "rights" are identical to those when visiting the dentist or any other medical procedure.

To view an abortion differently, one would have to buy into the notion that laws in the Constitution and notes on medical procedures in the Bible are wrong.

According to the supreme court the Constitution provides rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom FROM government interference in private behaviors including a right "to be let alone", while the Bible, when it mentions punishing abortion at all, suggests small fines as the most severe penalties for abortion - and then only for causing one accidentally in someone else's family.

So all the nutball horseshit notwithstanding, abortion is a long term right in the history of most cultures. Only papist scum got it outlawed in some jurisdictions in America before evangelical scum took over the heavy lifting.

Next.

Uh-huh.
But you'll be happy to tell me there's a responsibility attached to the right to keep and bear arms.

IMO there is personal responsibility to your family and civil liability if you harm someone by accident...

Like I said - you'll be happy to tell me there's a responsibility attached to the right to keep and bear arms.
Where's the difference?

 

[Clementine]

Seems like only Obama and his administration has a right to ignore laws.

What laws are those?

Immigration laws.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Dugdale_Jukes believes our rights are sacrosanct, s/he also believes laws which restrict any regulations of arms s/he will disobey. So s/he believes we are a nations of laws but s/he is the final arbitrator of what laws are obeyed and what laws are not.

The final arbitrator is the USSC. To date the Court has recognzied reasonable regulation of arms is not a violation of the Second Amendment. Time will tell if the current court will take on the issue, but I cannot imagine the Justices to expand the SA to disallow government at all levels some discretion.

I proffer the word itself, "arms" needs to be defined in terms of the original use of the word as understood in the 18th Century.