Gun Control - What's the Problem?

[Rigby5]

That is incorrect.
We, you and I, and others, create government.
It is subordinate and inferior in terms of authority to us.
We hire government to do certain things for us, but government can never be superior to its employers, us,
Governments do NOT really create laws at all.
Laws are supposed to be based simply on the pragmatic requirements necessary in order to protect individual inherent rights.
That is abstracted in to a constitution, and then legislators can pen laws in order to implement those inherent and pre-established protections of rights.
A government can never write a constitution, because a government does not exist yet before the Constitution is written.

Do you suppose if we were invaded by China, they took over the government, you would still have your rights because they were written by the people?

You misunderstand.
Rights are inherent for what is right to humans.
If the country is invaded or criminals take over some other way, what is right remains right.
The fact you may no longer have government backing up your rights changes nothing as far as what is right and what rights you will fight for.
The fact you may be killed, does not alter what is right and what rights all humans should inherently have.
Having rights does not mean they necessarily can't be violated.
We have the right to life now in the US, but some one can still murder you.
That does not change your right to life.
You can tell because the murderer will be prosecuted if caught.
Governments or criminals can not change what is right or what rights are.

No, because the Constitution refers to the government violating your rights, not another individual.

A convicted felon cannot buy or be in possession of a firearm. The right to be in possession of a firearm is guaranteed in the Constitution. The people who took that right away from you was the government. Same thing with voting.

The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is also guaranteed. But if you are arrested, imprisoned, and even sentenced to execution, all those rights are taken away from you by the government. If you are imprisoned, you lose the right to liberty by the government. If you are imprisoned, you are denied the right to happiness by the government. If you are imprisoned and executed for a capital crime, your right to life has been eliminated by the government.

No, you do not lose rights because rights are inherent and can not be taken away by government.
Rights can be restricted in use, but only by a conflict between your rights and the rights of others, which allows government agents to become empowered by the defense of the rights of others, to temporarily restrict the exercise of your rights.
For example, you suggest that rights of those imprisoned for crimes have been legally taken away, and that is not true.
Those imprisoned are not allowed weapons for their own defense, but if guards fail to defend a prisoner, they prisoner can sue and the negligent guards charged with a crime. You do not lose the right to liberty when imprisoned, and a reasonable attempt at exercise, communication, visitations, entertainment, pleasant food, etc., must be provided.
Government has no authority over rights at all.
All government is supposed to be able to do legally, is what the defense of the rights of others requires.
It is only the defense of the rights of others that empowers government at all.
Government is supposed to have no authority of its own.

You can debate government philosophy all you want. I'm telling you how it is today.

You can't pursue happiness in prison. You can be treated humanly, but who is happy behind bars? Not even an animal is happy that way. Having a right suspended for life is having your rights completely stripped away. It's the same thing.

If you are sentenced to execution, you are stripped away of your right to life. You are going to die at the hands of government whether you like it or not.

As a truck driver, I don't have fourth amendment rights, and I'm not hurting a fly or imposing on the rights of anybody else. The government just decided they are not going to allow us to have that right. Along with that I have no equal protection under the law either. To add insult to injury, most of the restrictions and laws created against us were not even written by electors. They were written by bureaucrats.

Your arguments only show why life without parole possibility and executions are illegal, not that there can't be punishments when necessary, in order to protect the rights of others,
As for truckers, I tend to agree police are abusive, but traffic is not a right and we can agree to any sort of contractual obligations we want when we accept our license.

 

[Rigby5]

We create government, not the other way around.
So it it an impossible contradiction to claim government creates rights or can legally take them away.
Those incarcerated still do have rights that can not legally be abused.
Government can restrict rights, but never take them away, and even restrictions have to be required in order to protect the rights of others.

What usually gets lost in these discussions is that saying unalienable rights can't be taken away is an existential claim. It's not saying government isn't allowed to take them away, it's saying that government literally can't take them away. It's not a rule. It's merely an observation about the nature of unalienable rights. They are an inherent part of being a creature with free will. Government can violate, or as you say "restrict", our rights. But short of killing someone, it can't take away their rights. Their rights are simply part of being conscious.

Even murdering someone does not take their rights away.
For it is the violation of that person's rights that the police hunt for the guilty party, and punish them.
If your rights were gone when you died, then there would be no point in charging anyone with your murder.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Do you suppose if we were invaded by China, they took over the government, you would still have your rights because they were written by the people?

You misunderstand.
Rights are inherent for what is right to humans.
If the country is invaded or criminals take over some other way, what is right remains right.
The fact you may no longer have government backing up your rights changes nothing as far as what is right and what rights you will fight for.
The fact you may be killed, does not alter what is right and what rights all humans should inherently have.
Having rights does not mean they necessarily can't be violated.
We have the right to life now in the US, but some one can still murder you.
That does not change your right to life.
You can tell because the murderer will be prosecuted if caught.
Governments or criminals can not change what is right or what rights are.

No, because the Constitution refers to the government violating your rights, not another individual.

A convicted felon cannot buy or be in possession of a firearm. The right to be in possession of a firearm is guaranteed in the Constitution. The people who took that right away from you was the government. Same thing with voting.

The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is also guaranteed. But if you are arrested, imprisoned, and even sentenced to execution, all those rights are taken away from you by the government. If you are imprisoned, you lose the right to liberty by the government. If you are imprisoned, you are denied the right to happiness by the government. If you are imprisoned and executed for a capital crime, your right to life has been eliminated by the government.

No, you do not lose rights because rights are inherent and can not be taken away by government.
Rights can be restricted in use, but only by a conflict between your rights and the rights of others, which allows government agents to become empowered by the defense of the rights of others, to temporarily restrict the exercise of your rights.
For example, you suggest that rights of those imprisoned for crimes have been legally taken away, and that is not true.
Those imprisoned are not allowed weapons for their own defense, but if guards fail to defend a prisoner, they prisoner can sue and the negligent guards charged with a crime. You do not lose the right to liberty when imprisoned, and a reasonable attempt at exercise, communication, visitations, entertainment, pleasant food, etc., must be provided.
Government has no authority over rights at all.
All government is supposed to be able to do legally, is what the defense of the rights of others requires.
It is only the defense of the rights of others that empowers government at all.
Government is supposed to have no authority of its own.

You can debate government philosophy all you want. I'm telling you how it is today.

You can't pursue happiness in prison. You can be treated humanly, but who is happy behind bars? Not even an animal is happy that way. Having a right suspended for life is having your rights completely stripped away. It's the same thing.

If you are sentenced to execution, you are stripped away of your right to life. You are going to die at the hands of government whether you like it or not.

As a truck driver, I don't have fourth amendment rights, and I'm not hurting a fly or imposing on the rights of anybody else. The government just decided they are not going to allow us to have that right. Along with that I have no equal protection under the law either. To add insult to injury, most of the restrictions and laws created against us were not even written by electors. They were written by bureaucrats.

Your arguments only show why life without parole possibility and executions are illegal, not that there can't be punishments when necessary, in order to protect the rights of others,
As for truckers, I tend to agree police are abusive, but traffic is not a right and we can agree to any sort of contractual obligations we want when we accept our license.

Now we're getting somewhere. So government CAN remove rights from people based on their willingness to surrender them. Isn't that the same with becoming a felon?

I am unaware of any "exceptions" written in the Constitution for Americans who participate in the kinds of work they do. As far as I can tell, those rights belong to all Americans regardless of race, religion, and yes, their occupation.

 

[Rigby5]

And what got you there in the first place? You violated others right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So where in the Constitution does it say if "I" violate somebody's rights, the government has the right to violate mine?

As I stated, rights were granted so that government could not violate them. As an individual, I have no mandate to do the same. The Constitution doesn't prohibit me from violating your rights, it prohibits the government from violating those rights.

In other words, government cannot stop me from free speech, but if I go to work and call my boss a MF, and tell him to go to hell, he can fire me because he's not bound by the Constitution of allowing free speech. Only the government is. So I can call my Congress person a MF, and tell him or her to go to hell with no repercussions, but I can't do the same with my employer.

So you say that you can go into a school, murder 40 school children, wouldn't a couple of hundred and you can't lose any of your "Rights" even though you terrorized the whole community and murdered and maimed many? We should just look at you and say, shame, shame and go on with our lives, or at least those of us still alive.

I don't understand what you're getting at.

I clearly stated that government does have the ability to remove rights from people. The Constitution does not guarantee rights if you choose to surrender them by violating law.

If I am a convicted felon, the government has the ability to not allow me to exercise my right of firearm ownership. I made that choice when I thtdecided to become a felon.

It is not that simple.
For example, convicted felons have been known to have used a firearm in defense, and been let off by appeals court.
That is because you can prevent a felon from having firearms only because you do not trust them.
That does not mean you can punish them for an action that can be clearly demonstrated to have been legal and necessary.
There is no right of firearm ownership exactly, but one of defense, of oneself, home, family, tribe, municipality, state, and country.
You do not have to decide to become a felon in order to be one. It can be obscure laws, mistaken identity, a frame up, etc.

It can be but seldom is. The point being made is that government does take away rights under certain conditions. You may not like it, may think it's unconstitutional, but it happens every day.

Yes, the government is doing illegal and unconstitutional things all the time.
And I don't just mean things like the federal government illegally making weapons or drug laws.
I mean things like lying about WMD, committing war crimes in Guantanamo, illegally giving weapons to those abusing the Palestinians, etc.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't understand what you're getting at.

I clearly stated that government does have the ability to remove rights from people. The Constitution does not guarantee rights if you choose to surrender them by violating law.

If I am a convicted felon, the government has the ability to not allow me to exercise my right of firearm ownership. I made that choice when I decided to become a felon.

But it wasn't your choice. I know of a number of convicted felons on Parole that certainly don't have that choice. It's not the person that removes those "Rights", it's the Government. And guess why?

The government removes rights based on your actions. The felons you know did make that choice when they committed their crimes and got caught. Ask anyone of them if they knew they wouldn't be able to ever possess a firearm again, vote in most states, and have difficulty finding a decent paying job.

They knew all of these things before committing the crime, so they made that choice. Nobody forced them to rob a convenience store.

Yet you say that the Government can't take anyone's rights. You even said it applied to Felons. Your goal post must be Quantum powered. Now, who grants you those rights in the first place. And don't say it's God Given. If a person is an Athiest does that mean they have no rights?

My entire argument is that rights are given to us by the government. How could government take something away they didn't give you in the first place?

We the people, created this government, based on what Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence,
{...We hold these truths to be self-evident, ... that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ...}
That does not imply they are God given, but instead based on the human condition created by our universal DNA.
So it is impossible for rights to have been created by government. Government is subordinate to us, the people.
And we can not create something that has more power than we do.
What you suggest is impossible.
And the reality is that government has no authority of its own at all, and only acts on what little authority we delegate to government, when we want government to do something for us, such as protecting our rights.

And the fact government can not possibly grant rights, is why government also can not take them away.
For example, everyone has the right to smoke if they want, but it does not at all reduce your rights to temporarily have that right restricted while you are in an elevator, for example.

You are living in a perfect world. Of course we created something bigger than we are, and Democrats try to make that bigger every time they gain power.

If rights are not provided to us by government (essentially the people) and they are based on human conditions of our universal DNA, why is it these rights don't apply to people in every country?

 

[Rigby5]

Technically traffic laws are voluntary contractual obligations when you accept the license. That is because driving itself, is not really a right.
But government has no authority of its own.
So government can only act in the defense of the rights of others.
That means that it can incarcerate you when you harm others, in order to protect others.
But once out, there no longer is a legal valid justification for harming the convicted felon.
Government does not have that authority, as it defends no one.
In fact, by denying the right to vote, government is committing the crime of taxation without representation,

Ironically we need 'license' to exercise our 2nd. Which is a right. And we have to involuntarily relinquish our 1st and 5th amendment rights in order to apply for license to require a gun.

Good grief. That's a 10th amendment violation itself. I don't recall that requirement to be a power of the federal government in the constitution either.

Wrong.

License and permit requirement have been upheld by the courts with regard to citizens exercising their First Amendment rights; the Second Amendment right is no different.

Licensing and permit requirements violate neither the First nor Fifth Amendment – the notion is utter nonsense.

And there’s nothing in the 10th Amendment that prohibits the Federal government from enacting firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment case law.

Ridiculous.
No right has ever required or allowed licensing or permits.
The only time permits of licensing has ever been upheld in courts are when it harms others, like taking over a street for a political parade.

The 10 amendment specifically says the federal government can ONLY legislate where it is specifically granted jurisdiction by an article in the constitution. There is no such article allowing the federal government any authority at all over any weapons at all.
None!
There is not a single federal firearms or drug law that is even remotely legal.

lol

It's not 'ridiculous,' it's a fact of law.

What's ridiculous is shooting the messenger.

Name a right that requires a license or permit?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So where in the Constitution does it say if "I" violate somebody's rights, the government has the right to violate mine?

As I stated, rights were granted so that government could not violate them. As an individual, I have no mandate to do the same. The Constitution doesn't prohibit me from violating your rights, it prohibits the government from violating those rights.

In other words, government cannot stop me from free speech, but if I go to work and call my boss a MF, and tell him to go to hell, he can fire me because he's not bound by the Constitution of allowing free speech. Only the government is. So I can call my Congress person a MF, and tell him or her to go to hell with no repercussions, but I can't do the same with my employer.

So you say that you can go into a school, murder 40 school children, wouldn't a couple of hundred and you can't lose any of your "Rights" even though you terrorized the whole community and murdered and maimed many? We should just look at you and say, shame, shame and go on with our lives, or at least those of us still alive.

I don't understand what you're getting at.

I clearly stated that government does have the ability to remove rights from people. The Constitution does not guarantee rights if you choose to surrender them by violating law.

If I am a convicted felon, the government has the ability to not allow me to exercise my right of firearm ownership. I made that choice when I thtdecided to become a felon.

It is not that simple.
For example, convicted felons have been known to have used a firearm in defense, and been let off by appeals court.
That is because you can prevent a felon from having firearms only because you do not trust them.
That does not mean you can punish them for an action that can be clearly demonstrated to have been legal and necessary.
There is no right of firearm ownership exactly, but one of defense, of oneself, home, family, tribe, municipality, state, and country.
You do not have to decide to become a felon in order to be one. It can be obscure laws, mistaken identity, a frame up, etc.

It can be but seldom is. The point being made is that government does take away rights under certain conditions. You may not like it, may think it's unconstitutional, but it happens every day.

Yes, the government is doing illegal and unconstitutional things all the time.
And I don't just mean things like the federal government illegally making weapons or drug laws.
I mean things like lying about WMD, committing war crimes in Guantanamo, illegally giving weapons to those abusing the Palestinians, etc.

You can't abuse terrorists which is what the Palestinians are.

Making laws against drugs is not unconstitutional unless you can show me where government is restricted from creating such laws, or that using drugs is protected.

 

[Rigby5]

You misunderstand.
Rights are inherent for what is right to humans.
If the country is invaded or criminals take over some other way, what is right remains right.
The fact you may no longer have government backing up your rights changes nothing as far as what is right and what rights you will fight for.
The fact you may be killed, does not alter what is right and what rights all humans should inherently have.
Having rights does not mean they necessarily can't be violated.
We have the right to life now in the US, but some one can still murder you.
That does not change your right to life.
You can tell because the murderer will be prosecuted if caught.
Governments or criminals can not change what is right or what rights are.

No, because the Constitution refers to the government violating your rights, not another individual.

A convicted felon cannot buy or be in possession of a firearm. The right to be in possession of a firearm is guaranteed in the Constitution. The people who took that right away from you was the government. Same thing with voting.

The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is also guaranteed. But if you are arrested, imprisoned, and even sentenced to execution, all those rights are taken away from you by the government. If you are imprisoned, you lose the right to liberty by the government. If you are imprisoned, you are denied the right to happiness by the government. If you are imprisoned and executed for a capital crime, your right to life has been eliminated by the government.

No, you do not lose rights because rights are inherent and can not be taken away by government.
Rights can be restricted in use, but only by a conflict between your rights and the rights of others, which allows government agents to become empowered by the defense of the rights of others, to temporarily restrict the exercise of your rights.
For example, you suggest that rights of those imprisoned for crimes have been legally taken away, and that is not true.
Those imprisoned are not allowed weapons for their own defense, but if guards fail to defend a prisoner, they prisoner can sue and the negligent guards charged with a crime. You do not lose the right to liberty when imprisoned, and a reasonable attempt at exercise, communication, visitations, entertainment, pleasant food, etc., must be provided.
Government has no authority over rights at all.
All government is supposed to be able to do legally, is what the defense of the rights of others requires.
It is only the defense of the rights of others that empowers government at all.
Government is supposed to have no authority of its own.

You can debate government philosophy all you want. I'm telling you how it is today.

You can't pursue happiness in prison. You can be treated humanly, but who is happy behind bars? Not even an animal is happy that way. Having a right suspended for life is having your rights completely stripped away. It's the same thing.

If you are sentenced to execution, you are stripped away of your right to life. You are going to die at the hands of government whether you like it or not.

As a truck driver, I don't have fourth amendment rights, and I'm not hurting a fly or imposing on the rights of anybody else. The government just decided they are not going to allow us to have that right. Along with that I have no equal protection under the law either. To add insult to injury, most of the restrictions and laws created against us were not even written by electors. They were written by bureaucrats.

Your arguments only show why life without parole possibility and executions are illegal, not that there can't be punishments when necessary, in order to protect the rights of others,
As for truckers, I tend to agree police are abusive, but traffic is not a right and we can agree to any sort of contractual obligations we want when we accept our license.

Now we're getting somewhere. So government CAN remove rights from people based on their willingness to surrender them. Isn't that the same with becoming a felon?

I am unaware of any "exceptions" written in the Constitution for Americans who participate in the kinds of work they do. As far as I can tell, those rights belong to all Americans regardless of race, religion, and yes, their occupation.

As for occupations being an agreement to a restriction of rights, the first that comes to mind is the military.
But any person who takes a public job, automatically has agreed to some loss of privacy, as they have voluntarily become a public figure.

 

[Rigby5]

But it wasn't your choice. I know of a number of convicted felons on Parole that certainly don't have that choice. It's not the person that removes those "Rights", it's the Government. And guess why?

The government removes rights based on your actions. The felons you know did make that choice when they committed their crimes and got caught. Ask anyone of them if they knew they wouldn't be able to ever possess a firearm again, vote in most states, and have difficulty finding a decent paying job.

They knew all of these things before committing the crime, so they made that choice. Nobody forced them to rob a convenience store.

Yet you say that the Government can't take anyone's rights. You even said it applied to Felons. Your goal post must be Quantum powered. Now, who grants you those rights in the first place. And don't say it's God Given. If a person is an Athiest does that mean they have no rights?

My entire argument is that rights are given to us by the government. How could government take something away they didn't give you in the first place?

We the people, created this government, based on what Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence,
{...We hold these truths to be self-evident, ... that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ...}
That does not imply they are God given, but instead based on the human condition created by our universal DNA.
So it is impossible for rights to have been created by government. Government is subordinate to us, the people.
And we can not create something that has more power than we do.
What you suggest is impossible.
And the reality is that government has no authority of its own at all, and only acts on what little authority we delegate to government, when we want government to do something for us, such as protecting our rights.

And the fact government can not possibly grant rights, is why government also can not take them away.
For example, everyone has the right to smoke if they want, but it does not at all reduce your rights to temporarily have that right restricted while you are in an elevator, for example.

You are living in a perfect world. Of course we created something bigger than we are, and Democrats try to make that bigger every time they gain power.

If rights are not provided to us by government (essentially the people) and they are based on human conditions of our universal DNA, why is it these rights don't apply to people in every country?

The people can not possibly create something with more authority than they had to begin with.
That is just impossible.
Government is not only subordinate to the people, but just hired help essentially.
They not only are obligated to only do what we authorize them to do, but it but it become our right and responsibility to terminate any government that tries to usurp authority and try to become a source of arbitrary authority.

Rights used to be essentially universal, but with the switch from hunter/gatherer to sedentary agriculture, the excess production allowed for despots to hire mercenaries to enforce Might Makes Right over Inherent Rights.
That is how we got ancient imperialism and colonialism of the Romans, Spanish, French, English, etc.
The whole point of the USA is to restore inherent individual rights to its proper prominence.
That is why we outlawed slavery, and other historic abuses.
So in countries where all inherent individual rights do not apply, that is left over corruption.
But everyone knows that is wrong.
That is why these countries that violate rights spend so much on internal means of force.

 

[Rigby5]

So you say that you can go into a school, murder 40 school children, wouldn't a couple of hundred and you can't lose any of your "Rights" even though you terrorized the whole community and murdered and maimed many? We should just look at you and say, shame, shame and go on with our lives, or at least those of us still alive.

I don't understand what you're getting at.

I clearly stated that government does have the ability to remove rights from people. The Constitution does not guarantee rights if you choose to surrender them by violating law.

If I am a convicted felon, the government has the ability to not allow me to exercise my right of firearm ownership. I made that choice when I thtdecided to become a felon.

It is not that simple.
For example, convicted felons have been known to have used a firearm in defense, and been let off by appeals court.
That is because you can prevent a felon from having firearms only because you do not trust them.
That does not mean you can punish them for an action that can be clearly demonstrated to have been legal and necessary.
There is no right of firearm ownership exactly, but one of defense, of oneself, home, family, tribe, municipality, state, and country.
You do not have to decide to become a felon in order to be one. It can be obscure laws, mistaken identity, a frame up, etc.

It can be but seldom is. The point being made is that government does take away rights under certain conditions. You may not like it, may think it's unconstitutional, but it happens every day.

Yes, the government is doing illegal and unconstitutional things all the time.
And I don't just mean things like the federal government illegally making weapons or drug laws.
I mean things like lying about WMD, committing war crimes in Guantanamo, illegally giving weapons to those abusing the Palestinians, etc.

You can't abuse terrorists which is what the Palestinians are.

Making laws against drugs is not unconstitutional unless you can show me where government is restricted from creating such laws, or that using drugs is protected.

I don't want to spend much on Palestinians because it is off topic, but you are wrong. The Palestinians are the native, indigenous, land owners of all the land in Palestine, including Israel, and their lands have been illegal taken by illegal European immigrants who claim to be Jewish but are not really. All the terrorism was started by Zionists, who did things like blow up the King David Hotel, killing about 100 innocents. They also assassinated Count Folke Bernadotte, the UN Moderator. As well as massacring hundreds of Arab villages like Dier Yassin.Deir Yassin massacre - Wikipedia

Making laws against drugs is not unconstitutional, but making federal drug law most definitely IS unconstitutional.
The 10 amendment clearly prohibits any federal jurisdiction when not specifically granted by the Constitution.

 

[Rigby5]

No, because the Constitution refers to the government violating your rights, not another individual.

A convicted felon cannot buy or be in possession of a firearm. The right to be in possession of a firearm is guaranteed in the Constitution. The people who took that right away from you was the government. Same thing with voting.

The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is also guaranteed. But if you are arrested, imprisoned, and even sentenced to execution, all those rights are taken away from you by the government. If you are imprisoned, you lose the right to liberty by the government. If you are imprisoned, you are denied the right to happiness by the government. If you are imprisoned and executed for a capital crime, your right to life has been eliminated by the government.

And what got you there in the first place? You violated others right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So where in the Constitution does it say if "I" violate somebody's rights, the government has the right to violate mine?

As I stated, rights were granted so that government could not violate them. As an individual, I have no mandate to do the same. The Constitution doesn't prohibit me from violating your rights, it prohibits the government from violating those rights.

In other words, government cannot stop me from free speech, but if I go to work and call my boss a MF, and tell him to go to hell, he can fire me because he's not bound by the Constitution of allowing free speech. Only the government is. So I can call my Congress person a MF, and tell him or her to go to hell with no repercussions, but I can't do the same with my employer.

So you say that you can go into a school, murder 40 school children, wouldn't a couple of hundred and you can't lose any of your "Rights" even though you terrorized the whole community and murdered and maimed many? We should just look at you and say, shame, shame and go on with our lives, or at least those of us still alive.

Since government does not create or grant rights, it can not take them away.
When a person is incarcerated, their rights are restricted, but not by government.
The authority is coming from those others the government is obligated to protect.
And if another inmate murders a prisoner, the other inmate is charged with murder, so you still have rights, even if restricted,

Constitutional guaranteed rights such the 1st and 2nd amendment are not absolute. Government can suspend the guarantee of those rights in certain circumstances. A person is not guaranteed freedom to cry fire in crowded auditorium nor is a convicted felon guaranteed the right to bear arms. Governments have the right and obligation to protect it's people. If that requires suspension of constitutional rights for prisoners, those convicted of felons, and the mentally ill so be it.

But it is important to remember that it is not an authority of government that can allow for restrictions of rights, but that instead it is the defense of the rights of others that authorizes those restrictions of rights. The only source of any authority in a democratic republic, is inherent individual rights,

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't understand what you're getting at.

I clearly stated that government does have the ability to remove rights from people. The Constitution does not guarantee rights if you choose to surrender them by violating law.

If I am a convicted felon, the government has the ability to not allow me to exercise my right of firearm ownership. I made that choice when I thtdecided to become a felon.

It is not that simple.
For example, convicted felons have been known to have used a firearm in defense, and been let off by appeals court.
That is because you can prevent a felon from having firearms only because you do not trust them.
That does not mean you can punish them for an action that can be clearly demonstrated to have been legal and necessary.
There is no right of firearm ownership exactly, but one of defense, of oneself, home, family, tribe, municipality, state, and country.
You do not have to decide to become a felon in order to be one. It can be obscure laws, mistaken identity, a frame up, etc.

It can be but seldom is. The point being made is that government does take away rights under certain conditions. You may not like it, may think it's unconstitutional, but it happens every day.

Yes, the government is doing illegal and unconstitutional things all the time.
And I don't just mean things like the federal government illegally making weapons or drug laws.
I mean things like lying about WMD, committing war crimes in Guantanamo, illegally giving weapons to those abusing the Palestinians, etc.

You can't abuse terrorists which is what the Palestinians are.

Making laws against drugs is not unconstitutional unless you can show me where government is restricted from creating such laws, or that using drugs is protected.

I don't want to spend much on Palestinians because it is off topic, but you are wrong. The Palestinians are the native, indigenous, land owners of all the land in Palestine, including Israel, and their lands have been illegal taken by illegal European immigrants who claim to be Jewish but are not really. All the terrorism was started by Zionists, who did things like blow up the King David Hotel, killing about 100 innocents. They also assassinated Count Folke Bernadotte, the UN Moderator. As well as massacring hundreds of Arab villages like Dier Yassin.Deir Yassin massacre - Wikipedia

Making laws against drugs is not unconstitutional, but making federal drug law most definitely IS unconstitutional.
The 10 amendment clearly prohibits any federal jurisdiction when not specifically granted by the Constitution.

How so? The US Constitution gives explicit rights to Congress to create laws, taxation, and penalties provided there is nothing that stops them in the document.

So again, until you can point to me where recreational narcotics are protected in the Constitution, then Congress has the free will to create such laws against it.

 

[Rigby5]

It is not that simple.
For example, convicted felons have been known to have used a firearm in defense, and been let off by appeals court.
That is because you can prevent a felon from having firearms only because you do not trust them.
That does not mean you can punish them for an action that can be clearly demonstrated to have been legal and necessary.
There is no right of firearm ownership exactly, but one of defense, of oneself, home, family, tribe, municipality, state, and country.
You do not have to decide to become a felon in order to be one. It can be obscure laws, mistaken identity, a frame up, etc.

It can be but seldom is. The point being made is that government does take away rights under certain conditions. You may not like it, may think it's unconstitutional, but it happens every day.

Yes, the government is doing illegal and unconstitutional things all the time.
And I don't just mean things like the federal government illegally making weapons or drug laws.
I mean things like lying about WMD, committing war crimes in Guantanamo, illegally giving weapons to those abusing the Palestinians, etc.

You can't abuse terrorists which is what the Palestinians are.

Making laws against drugs is not unconstitutional unless you can show me where government is restricted from creating such laws, or that using drugs is protected.

I don't want to spend much on Palestinians because it is off topic, but you are wrong. The Palestinians are the native, indigenous, land owners of all the land in Palestine, including Israel, and their lands have been illegal taken by illegal European immigrants who claim to be Jewish but are not really. All the terrorism was started by Zionists, who did things like blow up the King David Hotel, killing about 100 innocents. They also assassinated Count Folke Bernadotte, the UN Moderator. As well as massacring hundreds of Arab villages like Dier Yassin.Deir Yassin massacre - Wikipedia

Making laws against drugs is not unconstitutional, but making federal drug law most definitely IS unconstitutional.
The 10 amendment clearly prohibits any federal jurisdiction when not specifically granted by the Constitution.

How so? The US Constitution gives explicit rights to Congress to create laws, taxation, and penalties provided there is nothing that stops them in the document.

So again, until you can point to me where recreational narcotics are protected in the Constitution, then Congress has the free will to create such laws against it.

I don't get your argument. Sure the US Constitution gives explicit authority, (not rights), to create laws, taxation, and penalties, but ONLY for things like tobacco and alcohol, protecting interstate commerce, the US post office, etc, Health care like drugs, definitely is NOT included, and then by the 10th Amendment, is totally left up to the jurisdiction of every level other than federal. There are lots of things not authorized to the federal government, such as traffic laws. That is why the federal government could not legally set a 55 mph speed limit, and it was done by the states instead. All the federal government could do was to promise financial subsidizes to states that cooperated. And when states refused to go along with the 55 mph speed limit, like Nevada, there was nothing the federal government could do.
Unless the US constitution specifically authorizes congress to have jurisdiction over a particular area, then the 10th amendment says that the area is to be totally exempt from any federal legislation.
The first amendment is a good example of how limited the federal government is supposed to be, in that it says, "Congress shall make no law...".
But the 9th and 10th amendment are a more general edict, that Congress is to be limited to only what is explicitly apportioned to the federal jurisdiction by the US Constitution.
{...
Ninth Amendment
Main article: Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.[93]

The Ninth Amendment declares that there are additional fundamental rights that exist outside the Constitution. The rights enumerated in the Constitution are not an explicit and exhaustive list of individual rights. It was rarely mentioned in Supreme Court decisions before the second half of the 20th century, when it was cited by several of the justices in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). The Court in that case voided a statute prohibiting use of contraceptives as an infringement of the right of marital privacy.[116] This right was, in turn, the foundation upon which the Supreme Court built decisions in several landmark cases, including, Roe v. Wade (1973), which overturned a Texas law making it a crime to assist a woman to get an abortion, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey(1992), which invalidated a Pennsylvania law that required spousal awareness prior to obtaining an abortion.

Tenth Amendment
Main article: Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[93]

The Tenth Amendment reinforces the principles of separation of powers and federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states or the people. The amendment provides no new powers or rights to the states, but rather preserves their authority in all matters not specifically granted to the federal government.[117]

Congress has sometimes circumvented the Tenth Amendment by invoking the Commerce Clause in Article One[118] or by threatening to withhold funding for a federal program from noncooperative States, as in South Dakota v. Dole (1987).
...}

The general principle being that you can't allow different levels of government have over lapping jurisdiction. The main point of the US constitution is to divide jurisdictions so that the federal government and states do not over lap or conflict. The original plan was that states were supposed to essentially remain as independent sovereign countries, and that the federation of the states together would be very limited to only things individual states could not do alone, like negotiating treaties with foreign powers. The trend where the federal government has usurped most state functions is a very illegal and disturbing event, that should be stopped. There are times it is necessary, such as when southern states were violating individual rights based on race, but that was really just the SCOTUS acting as final judicial arbiter over state legislation. It should not have involved Congress.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Rights don't come from the government. Anyone who is under the impression that it does, I'd recommend they reeducate themselves.

I'll leave yas with a relevant quote.


“In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.”

― Thomas Jefferson

 

[Blues Man]

No, because the Constitution refers to the government violating your rights, not another individual.

A convicted felon cannot buy or be in possession of a firearm. The right to be in possession of a firearm is guaranteed in the Constitution. The people who took that right away from you was the government. Same thing with voting.

The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is also guaranteed. But if you are arrested, imprisoned, and even sentenced to execution, all those rights are taken away from you by the government. If you are imprisoned, you lose the right to liberty by the government. If you are imprisoned, you are denied the right to happiness by the government. If you are imprisoned and executed for a capital crime, your right to life has been eliminated by the government.

And what got you there in the first place? You violated others right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So where in the Constitution does it say if "I" violate somebody's rights, the government has the right to violate mine?

As I stated, rights were granted so that government could not violate them. As an individual, I have no mandate to do the same. The Constitution doesn't prohibit me from violating your rights, it prohibits the government from violating those rights.

In other words, government cannot stop me from free speech, but if I go to work and call my boss a MF, and tell him to go to hell, he can fire me because he's not bound by the Constitution of allowing free speech. Only the government is. So I can call my Congress person a MF, and tell him or her to go to hell with no repercussions, but I can't do the same with my employer.

So you say that you can go into a school, murder 40 school children, wouldn't a couple of hundred and you can't lose any of your "Rights" even though you terrorized the whole community and murdered and maimed many? We should just look at you and say, shame, shame and go on with our lives, or at least those of us still alive.

Since government does not create or grant rights, it can not take them away.
When a person is incarcerated, their rights are restricted, but not by government.
The authority is coming from those others the government is obligated to protect.
And if another inmate murders a prisoner, the other inmate is charged with murder, so you still have rights, even if restricted,

Constitutional guaranteed rights such the 1st and 2nd amendment are not absolute. Government can suspend the guarantee of those rights in certain circumstances. A person is not guaranteed freedom to cry fire in crowded auditorium nor is a convicted felon guaranteed the right to bear arms. Governments have the right and obligation to protect it's people. If that requires suspension of constitutional rights for prisoners, those convicted of felons, and the mentally ill so be it.

It is not illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater.

It never was

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Blues Man]

The government removes rights based on your actions. The felons you know did make that choice when they committed their crimes and got caught. Ask anyone of them if they knew they wouldn't be able to ever possess a firearm again, vote in most states, and have difficulty finding a decent paying job.

They knew all of these things before committing the crime, so they made that choice. Nobody forced them to rob a convenience store.

Yet you say that the Government can't take anyone's rights. You even said it applied to Felons. Your goal post must be Quantum powered. Now, who grants you those rights in the first place. And don't say it's God Given. If a person is an Athiest does that mean they have no rights?

My entire argument is that rights are given to us by the government. How could government take something away they didn't give you in the first place?

So now we are on the same page. God didn't give you the "Rights". The Government did. And Rights cannot be taken away, right? it works out this way, you call them rights but when a right affects others in a negative fashion, they become privileges. And Privileges can be taken away as long as it's done using Due Process.

Now, revisit the 2nd amendment.

Rights don't become privileges. Rights are rights and privileges are privileges. They don't become anything than what they are.

Like I said, government does take away rights. They do it to us truck drivers every single day. Those rights don't apply to us because we did get a CDL and did pursue that line of work. In other words we surrendered specific rights when we entered that career.

Whether you want to use the words suspend, restricted, removed, it's all the same thing when you no longer have that right(s) for whatever reason.

You are tap dancing around the issue. Rights cannot be taken. And the only being that presents rights is God. And He has nothing to do with you driving your truck. Okay, maybe a little with the way some truckers drive.

Driving is not a right it is a privilege granted by the government

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Rustic]

 

[jc456]

We have the right to life now in the US, but some one can still murder you.

Yea,,,in a mass murder attack with an assault rifle

what is an assault rifle exactly?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We have the right to life now in the US, but some one can still murder you.

Yea,,,in a mass murder attack with an assault rifle

what is an assault rifle exactly?

The Sturmgewehr 44 is an assault rifle--- in fact it is THE assault rifle (the only one actually named "assault rifle")

Sturmgewehr 44 - StG 44 - Wikipedia

 

[jc456]

We have the right to life now in the US, but some one can still murder you.

Yea,,,in a mass murder attack with an assault rifle

what is an assault rifle exactly?

The Sturmgewehr 44 is an assault rifle--- in fact it is THE assault rifle (the only one actually named "assault rifle")

Sturmgewehr 44 - StG 44 - Wikipedia

bet those babies are just lying around.