The Right To Bear Arms

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The second amendment is actually the basic human right to self defense.

 

[Flash]

[


No, the Second Amendment has only recently been incorporated by the Supreme Court. In 2000 the 2A did NOT apply to the states.

It has always applied to the states. However, it has taken court cases like McDonald v Chicago to affirm it.

The right existed since the Bill of Rights was established. Just because some stupid anti gun nut Liberals didn't understand it and it took court cases to affirm it doesn't mean that it didn't exist from the beginning.

However, if you want to be absurd and somehow claim that the Bill of Rights does not protect individual rights in the US then go ahead. We hear silly shit like that all the time on this forum.

Our Founding Fathers had it right to establish a Bill of Rights so that some oppressive elected body could not take away our individual God endowed liberties. Like they suspected there would be assholes that would try to take those liberties away. Unfortunately it has taken court cases at one time or another to incorporate almost all of the amendments in the BoRs.

You point is really moot for any discussion on the legality of prohibiting the possession of firearms nowadays given the McDonald ruling.. It is like arguing that slavery was OK before the 13th Amendment.

 

[sakinago]

The mental gymnastics here are wild. How you can somehow say cannot be infringed still means you can infringe...how schizo is your mind that you can use the same word, in the same phrase...and both confirm and deny what it means...all rolled up into one. Shall not be infringed, doesn’t mean unless you have a debate about it, or shall not be infringed winky face, or give it a lot of thought when you decide to infringed...it simply means shall not be infringed.

The wording is very clear, the intentions are very clear, the historical context is very clear, how the law was put into practice at the time and in subsequent years has been very clear, and what our founders wrote about this law and where they got the idea is all very clear. Just because a government does not follow the constitution, doesn’t make it constitutional. The 2nd amendment is one of many of the BOR that have been trampled upon. Of course government is not going to admit that they are acting outside of the constitution. They did the same BS to justify rounding up and throwing people into interment camps, poisoning their own population during prohibition, and hundreds of other atrocities they carried out that were clearly against the constitution. If you want gun control legally, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment. There is no way around it. This is what pro gun control Ivy League constitutional law professors will tell you as well. You have to repeal the 2nd, it’s clear, it’s intentions were made clear by both writings and practice. Made clear by the philosophy used and followed. This all was written about extensively. Put into practice. The militia WAS NOT TO BE CONTROLLED BY THE STATE. It could be called up by the governor, but it’s still led and controlled by the local population.

Well that's the point isn't it?

I don't know how, I just know it is so.

The question here is, do you think the Founding Fathers wanted the insane and prisoners to have guns when they wrote the 2A?

The issue here is that ALL RIGHTS have limited. Which means ALL RIGHTS can be infringed, no matter whether you right "shall not be infringed or not".

Call it mental gymnastics all you like, it doesn't change this fact.

You think the wording is clear? Okay, you go try and get an atomic bomb. When you can't get an atomic bomb, you go to court and say your 2A rights are being violated, and see how far you get.

Clearly not with prisoners, since they obviously forfeited their constitutionally protected rights, as evidenced by the fact they weren’t on the street walking freely, but instead in prison, and had their personal possessions removed beforehand including guns. Did that really need to be said? It should be noted that their personal possessions, including firearms, were returned after their sentence was completed.

When it comes to the “insane” we’ll thats quite the broad sweeping stroke of the brush for someone who seems so concerned about “definitions.” There are already rules in place for those that are a danger to themselves or others. It’s a high standard yes, but I prefer a high standard when it comes to holding and treating someone against their will. I happen to agree with the ACLU on this. Now how do you want to define insane? Few of the mass shooter had an actual diagnosis given before hand, and the ones who did had a fairly common diagnosis that millions of other Americans have, but it’s an overwhelmingly vast minority that actually become murderers. Now is it fair to say to all these millions of people, “because you were born with or developed a disease that you didn’t ask for...we’re going to strip your rights away” ? NO. That’s more of this collectivist BS, where instead of looking at and judging individual, and their individual actions, you lump them into a group, and judge them upon the actions of some other individuals of that group. That’s a gross miscarriage of what our justice system is supposed to be.

They don't FORFEIT their rights, they have them INFRINGED UPON.

But do you agree then that prisoners can have their RKBA infringed upon?

If you are convicted of a crime, you loose your rights. There are prisoner rights. But you’re obviously not walking free on the streets, let alone free to walk around in the prison where you please, you do not have a right to privacy, guards don’t need a warrant to search your cell. You can’t wear whatever you want, you can’t contact the outside world whenever you want, you can only see visitors at a certain time, you don’t get due process ora trial in the prison punishment system...and oh yea you can’t carry around a gun. Again do I really need to list all of this?

No, if you're convicted of a crime you don't lose, nor loose, your rights. You have the INFRINGED UPON.

Rights only exist when EVERYONE has them. If someone doesn't have rights, then no one has rights, they become privileges.


OHCHR | What are Human Rights

"Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible."

So, when someone thinks that the right to keep arms is a human right, then this means that people in China, the UK or other such countries are having this right infringed upon by their governments. The people have these rights as INHERENT within them, simply because they are human beings. Status, like prisoner status, sexual status etc does not erode these rights.

infringe | Definition of infringe in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

"
1.1 Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
‘his legal rights were being infringed’"

Seems someone needs to learn about Human Rights.

Nope wrong again, you have the right to life, but if you can forfeit that right if you commit murder and are sentenced to execution. Or you can be rightfully shoot trying to escape. You have a right to be secure in your person, but in prison they can cavity search you whenever they please, or even a probationer can be searched or forced to take a drug test without probable cause. The rules change with prisoners, they forfiet those rights when they are found guilty and sentenced. They start out with these rights, when they are sentenced they loose them, and when the sentence is complete, they are supposed to regain them.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well that's the point isn't it?

I don't know how, I just know it is so.

The question here is, do you think the Founding Fathers wanted the insane and prisoners to have guns when they wrote the 2A?

The issue here is that ALL RIGHTS have limited. Which means ALL RIGHTS can be infringed, no matter whether you right "shall not be infringed or not".

Call it mental gymnastics all you like, it doesn't change this fact.

You think the wording is clear? Okay, you go try and get an atomic bomb. When you can't get an atomic bomb, you go to court and say your 2A rights are being violated, and see how far you get.

Clearly not with prisoners, since they obviously forfeited their constitutionally protected rights, as evidenced by the fact they weren’t on the street walking freely, but instead in prison, and had their personal possessions removed beforehand including guns. Did that really need to be said? It should be noted that their personal possessions, including firearms, were returned after their sentence was completed.

When it comes to the “insane” we’ll thats quite the broad sweeping stroke of the brush for someone who seems so concerned about “definitions.” There are already rules in place for those that are a danger to themselves or others. It’s a high standard yes, but I prefer a high standard when it comes to holding and treating someone against their will. I happen to agree with the ACLU on this. Now how do you want to define insane? Few of the mass shooter had an actual diagnosis given before hand, and the ones who did had a fairly common diagnosis that millions of other Americans have, but it’s an overwhelmingly vast minority that actually become murderers. Now is it fair to say to all these millions of people, “because you were born with or developed a disease that you didn’t ask for...we’re going to strip your rights away” ? NO. That’s more of this collectivist BS, where instead of looking at and judging individual, and their individual actions, you lump them into a group, and judge them upon the actions of some other individuals of that group. That’s a gross miscarriage of what our justice system is supposed to be.

They don't FORFEIT their rights, they have them INFRINGED UPON.

But do you agree then that prisoners can have their RKBA infringed upon?

If you are convicted of a crime, you loose your rights. There are prisoner rights. But you’re obviously not walking free on the streets, let alone free to walk around in the prison where you please, you do not have a right to privacy, guards don’t need a warrant to search your cell. You can’t wear whatever you want, you can’t contact the outside world whenever you want, you can only see visitors at a certain time, you don’t get due process ora trial in the prison punishment system...and oh yea you can’t carry around a gun. Again do I really need to list all of this?

No, if you're convicted of a crime you don't lose, nor loose, your rights. You have the INFRINGED UPON.

Rights only exist when EVERYONE has them. If someone doesn't have rights, then no one has rights, they become privileges.


OHCHR | What are Human Rights

"Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible."

So, when someone thinks that the right to keep arms is a human right, then this means that people in China, the UK or other such countries are having this right infringed upon by their governments. The people have these rights as INHERENT within them, simply because they are human beings. Status, like prisoner status, sexual status etc does not erode these rights.

infringe | Definition of infringe in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

"
1.1 Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
‘his legal rights were being infringed’"

Seems someone needs to learn about Human Rights.

Nope wrong again, you have the right to life, but if you can forfeit that right if you commit murder and are sentenced to execution. Or you can be rightfully shoot trying to escape. You have a right to be secure in your person, but in prison they can cavity search you whenever they please, or even a probationer can be searched or forced to take a drug test without probable cause. The rules change with prisoners, they forfiet those rights when they are found guilty and sentenced. They start out with these rights, when they are sentenced they loose them, and when the sentence is complete, they are supposed to regain them.

Death is the ultimate punishment. Whether it's consistent with Human Rights is another matter entirely. Just because the US executes people, doesn't mean that Human Rights can be taken away in any other manner. This is just you hoping something sticks.

Yes, in prison you have your rights infringed upon. You don't LOSE your right to be secure in your person, you have it infringed upon. You don't have your right taken away, because if you did, there wouldn't be a right, just privileges.

Yes, rules change with prisoners. Why? Because after DUE PROCESS you can have your rights INFRINGED UPON.

As I showed you, the theory of human rights says humans have Human Rights inherently because they are human beings. Prisoners don't stop being human beings.

IT'S LOSE, not loose. Fucking hell. You're trying to argue the case for something, using the English language and you don't know the difference between "I lose my shirt every day" and "My shirt is loose", one is a verb, one is an adjective, you can't use an adjective as a verb, especially when it has a completely different meaning.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The second amendment is actually the basic human right to self defense.

No, it's not.

 

[sakinago]

Clearly not with prisoners, since they obviously forfeited their constitutionally protected rights, as evidenced by the fact they weren’t on the street walking freely, but instead in prison, and had their personal possessions removed beforehand including guns. Did that really need to be said? It should be noted that their personal possessions, including firearms, were returned after their sentence was completed.

When it comes to the “insane” we’ll thats quite the broad sweeping stroke of the brush for someone who seems so concerned about “definitions.” There are already rules in place for those that are a danger to themselves or others. It’s a high standard yes, but I prefer a high standard when it comes to holding and treating someone against their will. I happen to agree with the ACLU on this. Now how do you want to define insane? Few of the mass shooter had an actual diagnosis given before hand, and the ones who did had a fairly common diagnosis that millions of other Americans have, but it’s an overwhelmingly vast minority that actually become murderers. Now is it fair to say to all these millions of people, “because you were born with or developed a disease that you didn’t ask for...we’re going to strip your rights away” ? NO. That’s more of this collectivist BS, where instead of looking at and judging individual, and their individual actions, you lump them into a group, and judge them upon the actions of some other individuals of that group. That’s a gross miscarriage of what our justice system is supposed to be.

They don't FORFEIT their rights, they have them INFRINGED UPON.

But do you agree then that prisoners can have their RKBA infringed upon?

If you are convicted of a crime, you loose your rights. There are prisoner rights. But you’re obviously not walking free on the streets, let alone free to walk around in the prison where you please, you do not have a right to privacy, guards don’t need a warrant to search your cell. You can’t wear whatever you want, you can’t contact the outside world whenever you want, you can only see visitors at a certain time, you don’t get due process ora trial in the prison punishment system...and oh yea you can’t carry around a gun. Again do I really need to list all of this?

No, if you're convicted of a crime you don't lose, nor loose, your rights. You have the INFRINGED UPON.

Rights only exist when EVERYONE has them. If someone doesn't have rights, then no one has rights, they become privileges.


OHCHR | What are Human Rights

"Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible."

So, when someone thinks that the right to keep arms is a human right, then this means that people in China, the UK or other such countries are having this right infringed upon by their governments. The people have these rights as INHERENT within them, simply because they are human beings. Status, like prisoner status, sexual status etc does not erode these rights.

infringe | Definition of infringe in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

"
1.1 Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
‘his legal rights were being infringed’"

Seems someone needs to learn about Human Rights.

Nope wrong again, you have the right to life, but if you can forfeit that right if you commit murder and are sentenced to execution. Or you can be rightfully shoot trying to escape. You have a right to be secure in your person, but in prison they can cavity search you whenever they please, or even a probationer can be searched or forced to take a drug test without probable cause. The rules change with prisoners, they forfiet those rights when they are found guilty and sentenced. They start out with these rights, when they are sentenced they loose them, and when the sentence is complete, they are supposed to regain them.

Death is the ultimate punishment. Whether it's consistent with Human Rights is another matter entirely. Just because the US executes people, doesn't mean that Human Rights can be taken away in any other manner. This is just you hoping something sticks.

Yes, in prison you have your rights infringed upon. You don't LOSE your right to be secure in your person, you have it infringed upon. You don't have your right taken away, because if you did, there wouldn't be a right, just privileges.

Yes, rules change with prisoners. Why? Because after DUE PROCESS you can have your rights INFRINGED UPON.

As I showed you, the theory of human rights says humans have Human Rights inherently because they are human beings. Prisoners don't stop being human beings.

IT'S LOSE, not loose. Fucking hell. You're trying to argue the case for something, using the English language and you don't know the difference between "I lose my shirt every day" and "My shirt is loose", one is a verb, one is an adjective, you can't use an adjective as a verb, especially when it has a completely different meaning.

They are not infringed upon, they are forfeit. There are still basic “humans rights”, which are different from natural rights. And there are certain rights we afford/grant to our prisoners, out of the sake of being humane. But the definition of human rights is also quite broad, and many things that many may claim as a human right, can come into direct conflict with natural rights. E.G. “I have a right to be believed.” No, you have a right to be heard, but to be believed would come into direct conflict with due process. “I have a right to free birth control.” No, you absolutely have a right to use BC, but not a right to free BC. “I have a right to feel safe from guns/offensive speech/etc.” No because that would conflict with free speech and the 2nd. “I have a right to free healthcare.” No, because that would conflict with property rights. And all these claimed “human rights” require government to positively grant them. So they’re not so much rights, but privileges.

The natural rights on the other hand are only insured by placing negative rights onto the government, so government cannot interfere and the rights can be carried out “naturally.” E.G. “congress shall make no law,” “shall not be infringed.”

I also see you trying to use the word infringe. This doesn’t work for a couple reasons. A. The 2nd clearly says “shall not be infringed.” B. Once infringed upon, they no longer become garunteed rights, they become revocable privileges.

 

[emilynghiem]

Because if people are not legally competent, they require a guardian
to be legally responsible for them including them having access to guns or using them.

As for prisoners, if the crime for which you are convicted calls for deprivation of liberty and freedom
then you can lose rights by the laws.

In general, right of the people implies law abiding citizens.
you call this well-regulated militia, but it means citizens who commit to uphold and defend the laws not violate them.

Prisoners, being convicted of crimes, have violated laws and thus merit loss of liberties.
If people are found to be insane and not able to comply with laws,
they can also lose their rights to guardianship.

NOTE: in cases of PTSD for victims of rape or other crimes,
or in cases of veterans, this is still contested if such "mental ill" conditions
should render such people barred from defending themselves with guns.

This isn't so clear cut.

The argument being presented is that it says "shall not be infringed", and therefore this means that the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED EVER.

Which is rubbish, right?

So the 2A says "shall not be infringed" but this means that it CAN BE infringed upon.

Dear frigidweirdo
All that is missing is that we agree on limits on laws and rights,
similar to agreements on the freedom of speech and press
that cannot be abused to commit slander, libel, harassment, fraud, misrepresentation etc.

As stated before, no laws can be "taken out of context" and abused
so as to violate OTHER laws that are also within the same Bill of Rights and Constitution.

So it is not considered an infringement to check the exercise of rights
by OTHER laws and principles such as
* the right to security in our persons houses and effects
* the equal right to protection of the laws
* the right to due process and not to be deprived of rights and liberties
unless convicted by law of a crime for which the law prescribes such a penalty

Enforcing other parts of the same laws as one context
is NOT generally seen as infringing on those rights.

Again this is what I mean by "the right of the people" as inherently
implying "law abiding citizens" or for the purpose of "defending not violating" the law.
You can call this "well regulated militia"
and people like ChrisL may argue we both mean the PEOPLE
who play that role of policing govt, regardless if you call it militia or "the people who are the government."

Enforcing other laws to check each other
isn't counted as infringement.
We just have to AGREE and resolved any perceived
conflicts, so we AGREE this is ENFORCING laws
and not violating Constitutional rights and principles.

So we agree that "shall no be infringed" doesn't mean that it can't be infringed upon? good.

We agree more than disagree but the terms you use
is what throws people off frigidweirdo

I'd say it more like if you are infringing on the rights of others
by abusing or threatening to abuse weapons, then that's YOU
infringing your own rights. For example, if you abuse "free exercise of religion"
to sacrifice animals or people, that violates other laws, you end up
getting convicted and incarcerated. Well you can't complain that it's
the govt prohibiting you from practicing your religion. Part of your practice
violated OTHER LAWS. So it wasn't about infringing on your religion,
but about your actions that broke OTHER LAWS.

If this is explained in that context frigidweirdo
we would find we agree more than no, and avoid getting stuck in conflict over
the terminology you use that just invokes rejection when people hear that.

You just need a good facilitator to translate back and forth
and you'd be fine. The terms you use are going to shut people
down where they don't hear you. I can look past that and get to
what you mean but most people can't or won't do that much work to listen to you.

I'm not sure exactly what language you thin it is that throws other people off. It's a simple yes or no here, either the RKBA "shall not be infringed" EVER, or it shall be infringed. There are no two ways about it, right?

Dear frigidweirdo but your concept of infringed is going to be different from what infringed means to other ppl, because you don't interpret the meaning and wording of the Second Amendment the same way.

The example I gave for loose comparison is laws on sex marriage and rape: if someone interprets legal sex as within marriage only, that person will not see a law as "govt infringing on rights to have sex" by requiring people to be in a legal state marriage to have sex or else it's rape. One group would argue it's just govt barring rape, but the other group would say it's regulating sex.

If that analogy doesn't work how about abortion. If one person or group interprets abortion as murder and others do not, then they end up arguing in circles because one group keeps pushing for govt to regulate murder and the other group argues the govt doesn't have the authority to regulate free choice they don't consider to be murder.

You and others don't agree on what the law means by the right to bear arms, so your interpretations of what infringement means is going to be similarly "askew" and not aligned on the same page either.

Instead of arguing over infringement per se, you'd be better off spelling out specific rules means or process of screening registering or regulating guns for safety and crime prevention purposes. That doesn't depend on agreeing what you mean by infringement or not, because based on your interpretation alone, ppl will already consider that an infringement and oppose anything in that context which is already set up to be against their beliefs.

 

[frigidweirdo]

They don't FORFEIT their rights, they have them INFRINGED UPON.

But do you agree then that prisoners can have their RKBA infringed upon?

If you are convicted of a crime, you loose your rights. There are prisoner rights. But you’re obviously not walking free on the streets, let alone free to walk around in the prison where you please, you do not have a right to privacy, guards don’t need a warrant to search your cell. You can’t wear whatever you want, you can’t contact the outside world whenever you want, you can only see visitors at a certain time, you don’t get due process ora trial in the prison punishment system...and oh yea you can’t carry around a gun. Again do I really need to list all of this?

No, if you're convicted of a crime you don't lose, nor loose, your rights. You have the INFRINGED UPON.

Rights only exist when EVERYONE has them. If someone doesn't have rights, then no one has rights, they become privileges.


OHCHR | What are Human Rights

"Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible."

So, when someone thinks that the right to keep arms is a human right, then this means that people in China, the UK or other such countries are having this right infringed upon by their governments. The people have these rights as INHERENT within them, simply because they are human beings. Status, like prisoner status, sexual status etc does not erode these rights.

infringe | Definition of infringe in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

"
1.1 Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
‘his legal rights were being infringed’"

Seems someone needs to learn about Human Rights.

Nope wrong again, you have the right to life, but if you can forfeit that right if you commit murder and are sentenced to execution. Or you can be rightfully shoot trying to escape. You have a right to be secure in your person, but in prison they can cavity search you whenever they please, or even a probationer can be searched or forced to take a drug test without probable cause. The rules change with prisoners, they forfiet those rights when they are found guilty and sentenced. They start out with these rights, when they are sentenced they loose them, and when the sentence is complete, they are supposed to regain them.

Death is the ultimate punishment. Whether it's consistent with Human Rights is another matter entirely. Just because the US executes people, doesn't mean that Human Rights can be taken away in any other manner. This is just you hoping something sticks.

Yes, in prison you have your rights infringed upon. You don't LOSE your right to be secure in your person, you have it infringed upon. You don't have your right taken away, because if you did, there wouldn't be a right, just privileges.

Yes, rules change with prisoners. Why? Because after DUE PROCESS you can have your rights INFRINGED UPON.

As I showed you, the theory of human rights says humans have Human Rights inherently because they are human beings. Prisoners don't stop being human beings.

IT'S LOSE, not loose. Fucking hell. You're trying to argue the case for something, using the English language and you don't know the difference between "I lose my shirt every day" and "My shirt is loose", one is a verb, one is an adjective, you can't use an adjective as a verb, especially when it has a completely different meaning.

They are not infringed upon, they are forfeit. There are still basic “humans rights”, which are different from natural rights. And there are certain rights we afford/grant to our prisoners, out of the sake of being humane. But the definition of human rights is also quite broad, and many things that many may claim as a human right, can come into direct conflict with natural rights. E.G. “I have a right to be believed.” No, you have a right to be heard, but to be believed would come into direct conflict with due process. “I have a right to free birth control.” No, you absolutely have a right to use BC, but not a right to free BC. “I have a right to feel safe from guns/offensive speech/etc.” No because that would conflict with free speech and the 2nd. “I have a right to free healthcare.” No, because that would conflict with property rights. And all these claimed “human rights” require government to positively grant them. So they’re not so much rights, but privileges.

The natural rights on the other hand are only insured by placing negative rights onto the government, so government cannot interfere and the rights can be carried out “naturally.” E.G. “congress shall make no law,” “shall not be infringed.”

I also see you trying to use the word infringe. This doesn’t work for a couple reasons. A. The 2nd clearly says “shall not be infringed.” B. Once infringed upon, they no longer become garunteed rights, they become revocable privileges.

So, you think they're forfeited. Well SHOW SOME EVIDENCE.

I've shown you the UN thing that says that people don't forfeit rights, they have them as long as they are human beings.

Yes, the biggest problem with Rights is that it's not real. They exist because we, as humans, decide they exist.

You're talking about natural rights and human rights like they're different. They're not. Some people call them God Given Rights too, they're all the same.

The theory, however, assumes all people have them. You can't forfeit them. It's that simple. And you can't prove otherwise.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The argument being presented is that it says "shall not be infringed", and therefore this means that the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED EVER.

Which is rubbish, right?

So the 2A says "shall not be infringed" but this means that it CAN BE infringed upon.

Dear frigidweirdo
All that is missing is that we agree on limits on laws and rights,
similar to agreements on the freedom of speech and press
that cannot be abused to commit slander, libel, harassment, fraud, misrepresentation etc.

As stated before, no laws can be "taken out of context" and abused
so as to violate OTHER laws that are also within the same Bill of Rights and Constitution.

So it is not considered an infringement to check the exercise of rights
by OTHER laws and principles such as
* the right to security in our persons houses and effects
* the equal right to protection of the laws
* the right to due process and not to be deprived of rights and liberties
unless convicted by law of a crime for which the law prescribes such a penalty

Enforcing other parts of the same laws as one context
is NOT generally seen as infringing on those rights.

Again this is what I mean by "the right of the people" as inherently
implying "law abiding citizens" or for the purpose of "defending not violating" the law.
You can call this "well regulated militia"
and people like ChrisL may argue we both mean the PEOPLE
who play that role of policing govt, regardless if you call it militia or "the people who are the government."

Enforcing other laws to check each other
isn't counted as infringement.
We just have to AGREE and resolved any perceived
conflicts, so we AGREE this is ENFORCING laws
and not violating Constitutional rights and principles.

So we agree that "shall no be infringed" doesn't mean that it can't be infringed upon? good.

We agree more than disagree but the terms you use
is what throws people off frigidweirdo

I'd say it more like if you are infringing on the rights of others
by abusing or threatening to abuse weapons, then that's YOU
infringing your own rights. For example, if you abuse "free exercise of religion"
to sacrifice animals or people, that violates other laws, you end up
getting convicted and incarcerated. Well you can't complain that it's
the govt prohibiting you from practicing your religion. Part of your practice
violated OTHER LAWS. So it wasn't about infringing on your religion,
but about your actions that broke OTHER LAWS.

If this is explained in that context frigidweirdo
we would find we agree more than no, and avoid getting stuck in conflict over
the terminology you use that just invokes rejection when people hear that.

You just need a good facilitator to translate back and forth
and you'd be fine. The terms you use are going to shut people
down where they don't hear you. I can look past that and get to
what you mean but most people can't or won't do that much work to listen to you.

I'm not sure exactly what language you thin it is that throws other people off. It's a simple yes or no here, either the RKBA "shall not be infringed" EVER, or it shall be infringed. There are no two ways about it, right?

Dear frigidweirdo but your concept of infringed is going to be different from what infringed means to other ppl, because you don't interpret the meaning and wording of the Second Amendment the same way.

The example I gave for loose comparison is laws on sex marriage and rape: if someone interprets legal sex as within marriage only, that person will not see a law as "govt infringing on rights to have sex" by requiring people to be in a legal state marriage to have sex or else it's rape. One group would argue it's just govt barring rape, but the other group would say it's regulating sex.

If that analogy doesn't work how about abortion. If one person or group interprets abortion as murder and others do not, then they end up arguing in circles because one group keeps pushing for govt to regulate murder and the other group argues the govt doesn't have the authority to regulate free choice they don't consider to be murder.

You and others don't agree on what the law means by the right to bear arms, so your interpretations of what infringement means is going to be similarly "askew" and not aligned on the same page either.

Instead of arguing over infringement per se, you'd be better off spelling out specific rules means or process of screening registering or regulating guns for safety and crime prevention purposes. That doesn't depend on agreeing what you mean by infringement or not, because based on your interpretation alone, ppl will already consider that an infringement and oppose anything in that context which is already set up to be against their beliefs.

Well, I'm sure my concept might be different to other people's concept, because I know what it means and other people make it up. Again, I'm not going to bow down to people who just make shit up, no matter how much you think this is going to help conflict resolution.

Yes, I agree that your examples are problematic and I've had such arguments where it's just a matter of how people think.

But here we're dealing with something more concrete than opinion. We're dealing with how something functions in the US political system.

You might think you have a right to murder, but no matter how much you believe this, the US govt says you're wrong and if you commit murder they will hunt you down.

Rights as a theory have been written about, they cannot be forfeited except on death of the person. It's that simple. No amount of "I don't believe this" will change this fact from being part of US law.

 

[sakinago]

If you are convicted of a crime, you loose your rights. There are prisoner rights. But you’re obviously not walking free on the streets, let alone free to walk around in the prison where you please, you do not have a right to privacy, guards don’t need a warrant to search your cell. You can’t wear whatever you want, you can’t contact the outside world whenever you want, you can only see visitors at a certain time, you don’t get due process ora trial in the prison punishment system...and oh yea you can’t carry around a gun. Again do I really need to list all of this?

No, if you're convicted of a crime you don't lose, nor loose, your rights. You have the INFRINGED UPON.

Rights only exist when EVERYONE has them. If someone doesn't have rights, then no one has rights, they become privileges.


OHCHR | What are Human Rights

"Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible."

So, when someone thinks that the right to keep arms is a human right, then this means that people in China, the UK or other such countries are having this right infringed upon by their governments. The people have these rights as INHERENT within them, simply because they are human beings. Status, like prisoner status, sexual status etc does not erode these rights.

infringe | Definition of infringe in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

"
1.1 Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
‘his legal rights were being infringed’"

Seems someone needs to learn about Human Rights.

Nope wrong again, you have the right to life, but if you can forfeit that right if you commit murder and are sentenced to execution. Or you can be rightfully shoot trying to escape. You have a right to be secure in your person, but in prison they can cavity search you whenever they please, or even a probationer can be searched or forced to take a drug test without probable cause. The rules change with prisoners, they forfiet those rights when they are found guilty and sentenced. They start out with these rights, when they are sentenced they loose them, and when the sentence is complete, they are supposed to regain them.

Death is the ultimate punishment. Whether it's consistent with Human Rights is another matter entirely. Just because the US executes people, doesn't mean that Human Rights can be taken away in any other manner. This is just you hoping something sticks.

Yes, in prison you have your rights infringed upon. You don't LOSE your right to be secure in your person, you have it infringed upon. You don't have your right taken away, because if you did, there wouldn't be a right, just privileges.

Yes, rules change with prisoners. Why? Because after DUE PROCESS you can have your rights INFRINGED UPON.

As I showed you, the theory of human rights says humans have Human Rights inherently because they are human beings. Prisoners don't stop being human beings.

IT'S LOSE, not loose. Fucking hell. You're trying to argue the case for something, using the English language and you don't know the difference between "I lose my shirt every day" and "My shirt is loose", one is a verb, one is an adjective, you can't use an adjective as a verb, especially when it has a completely different meaning.

They are not infringed upon, they are forfeit. There are still basic “humans rights”, which are different from natural rights. And there are certain rights we afford/grant to our prisoners, out of the sake of being humane. But the definition of human rights is also quite broad, and many things that many may claim as a human right, can come into direct conflict with natural rights. E.G. “I have a right to be believed.” No, you have a right to be heard, but to be believed would come into direct conflict with due process. “I have a right to free birth control.” No, you absolutely have a right to use BC, but not a right to free BC. “I have a right to feel safe from guns/offensive speech/etc.” No because that would conflict with free speech and the 2nd. “I have a right to free healthcare.” No, because that would conflict with property rights. And all these claimed “human rights” require government to positively grant them. So they’re not so much rights, but privileges.

The natural rights on the other hand are only insured by placing negative rights onto the government, so government cannot interfere and the rights can be carried out “naturally.” E.G. “congress shall make no law,” “shall not be infringed.”

I also see you trying to use the word infringe. This doesn’t work for a couple reasons. A. The 2nd clearly says “shall not be infringed.” B. Once infringed upon, they no longer become garunteed rights, they become revocable privileges.

So, you think they're forfeited. Well SHOW SOME EVIDENCE.

I've shown you the UN thing that says that people don't forfeit rights, they have them as long as they are human beings.

Yes, the biggest problem with Rights is that it's not real. They exist because we, as humans, decide they exist.

You're talking about natural rights and human rights like they're different. They're not. Some people call them God Given Rights too, they're all the same.

The theory, however, assumes all people have them. You can't forfeit them. It's that simple. And you can't prove otherwise.

The evidence is in our prisoners. You can come up with whatever alternative reality you want. Their rights are forfeit, you go where they tell you, eat when they tell you, work when they tell you, wear what they tell you, you can only get what they allow you, they search you when they want to with/without your permission and without a warrant or probable cause, and if you are condemned to execution, you are killed. That’s the reality. We grant them certain privileges, those are not the same as rights. The “rights” they have are limited to being kept alive, in “livable” conditions. Outside of that, anything that can be revoked, or “infringed” as you like to state it, is not a right. You can try to argue they are rights, they’re not, that’s a misnomer, they are privileges.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, if you're convicted of a crime you don't lose, nor loose, your rights. You have the INFRINGED UPON.

Rights only exist when EVERYONE has them. If someone doesn't have rights, then no one has rights, they become privileges.


OHCHR | What are Human Rights

"Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible."

So, when someone thinks that the right to keep arms is a human right, then this means that people in China, the UK or other such countries are having this right infringed upon by their governments. The people have these rights as INHERENT within them, simply because they are human beings. Status, like prisoner status, sexual status etc does not erode these rights.

infringe | Definition of infringe in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

"
1.1 Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
‘his legal rights were being infringed’"

Seems someone needs to learn about Human Rights.

Nope wrong again, you have the right to life, but if you can forfeit that right if you commit murder and are sentenced to execution. Or you can be rightfully shoot trying to escape. You have a right to be secure in your person, but in prison they can cavity search you whenever they please, or even a probationer can be searched or forced to take a drug test without probable cause. The rules change with prisoners, they forfiet those rights when they are found guilty and sentenced. They start out with these rights, when they are sentenced they loose them, and when the sentence is complete, they are supposed to regain them.

Death is the ultimate punishment. Whether it's consistent with Human Rights is another matter entirely. Just because the US executes people, doesn't mean that Human Rights can be taken away in any other manner. This is just you hoping something sticks.

Yes, in prison you have your rights infringed upon. You don't LOSE your right to be secure in your person, you have it infringed upon. You don't have your right taken away, because if you did, there wouldn't be a right, just privileges.

Yes, rules change with prisoners. Why? Because after DUE PROCESS you can have your rights INFRINGED UPON.

As I showed you, the theory of human rights says humans have Human Rights inherently because they are human beings. Prisoners don't stop being human beings.

IT'S LOSE, not loose. Fucking hell. You're trying to argue the case for something, using the English language and you don't know the difference between "I lose my shirt every day" and "My shirt is loose", one is a verb, one is an adjective, you can't use an adjective as a verb, especially when it has a completely different meaning.

They are not infringed upon, they are forfeit. There are still basic “humans rights”, which are different from natural rights. And there are certain rights we afford/grant to our prisoners, out of the sake of being humane. But the definition of human rights is also quite broad, and many things that many may claim as a human right, can come into direct conflict with natural rights. E.G. “I have a right to be believed.” No, you have a right to be heard, but to be believed would come into direct conflict with due process. “I have a right to free birth control.” No, you absolutely have a right to use BC, but not a right to free BC. “I have a right to feel safe from guns/offensive speech/etc.” No because that would conflict with free speech and the 2nd. “I have a right to free healthcare.” No, because that would conflict with property rights. And all these claimed “human rights” require government to positively grant them. So they’re not so much rights, but privileges.

The natural rights on the other hand are only insured by placing negative rights onto the government, so government cannot interfere and the rights can be carried out “naturally.” E.G. “congress shall make no law,” “shall not be infringed.”

I also see you trying to use the word infringe. This doesn’t work for a couple reasons. A. The 2nd clearly says “shall not be infringed.” B. Once infringed upon, they no longer become garunteed rights, they become revocable privileges.

So, you think they're forfeited. Well SHOW SOME EVIDENCE.

I've shown you the UN thing that says that people don't forfeit rights, they have them as long as they are human beings.

Yes, the biggest problem with Rights is that it's not real. They exist because we, as humans, decide they exist.

You're talking about natural rights and human rights like they're different. They're not. Some people call them God Given Rights too, they're all the same.

The theory, however, assumes all people have them. You can't forfeit them. It's that simple. And you can't prove otherwise.

The evidence is in our prisoners. You can come up with whatever alternative reality you want. Their rights are forfeit, you go where they tell you, eat when they tell you, work when they tell you, wear what they tell you, you can only get what they allow you, they search you when they want to with/without your permission and without a warrant or probable cause, and if you are condemned to execution, you are killed. That’s the reality. We grant them certain privileges, those are not the same as rights. The “rights” they have are limited to being kept alive, in “livable” conditions. Outside of that, anything that can be revoked, or “infringed” as you like to state it, is not a right. You can try to argue they are rights, they’re not, that’s a misnomer, they are privileges.

No, the evidence isn't the prisoners.

You say they've had their rights forfeited, I say they've had them infringed upon. Either way they don't have their freedom.

Basically you have nothing. No evidence at all. Great.

 

[emilynghiem]

The second amendment is actually the basic human right to self defense.

TroglocratsRdumb
I call it "right of defense".
So it applies to military and personal defense, not just self defense but defending others, and the focus is on defending laws not committing offense.

( I also believe ppl should have equal access to legal defense, as an extension of the concept , using the civil process in place of firearm weaponry, for people who don't believe in militant use of weapons but prefer a nonviolent civil approach to resolving conflicts. So that those ppl have equal legal protection as others.)

 

[emilynghiem]

If you are convicted of a crime, you loose your rights. There are prisoner rights. But you’re obviously not walking free on the streets, let alone free to walk around in the prison where you please, you do not have a right to privacy, guards don’t need a warrant to search your cell. You can’t wear whatever you want, you can’t contact the outside world whenever you want, you can only see visitors at a certain time, you don’t get due process ora trial in the prison punishment system...and oh yea you can’t carry around a gun. Again do I really need to list all of this?

No, if you're convicted of a crime you don't lose, nor loose, your rights. You have the INFRINGED UPON.

Rights only exist when EVERYONE has them. If someone doesn't have rights, then no one has rights, they become privileges.


OHCHR | What are Human Rights

"Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible."

So, when someone thinks that the right to keep arms is a human right, then this means that people in China, the UK or other such countries are having this right infringed upon by their governments. The people have these rights as INHERENT within them, simply because they are human beings. Status, like prisoner status, sexual status etc does not erode these rights.

infringe | Definition of infringe in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

"
1.1 Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
‘his legal rights were being infringed’"

Seems someone needs to learn about Human Rights.

Nope wrong again, you have the right to life, but if you can forfeit that right if you commit murder and are sentenced to execution. Or you can be rightfully shoot trying to escape. You have a right to be secure in your person, but in prison they can cavity search you whenever they please, or even a probationer can be searched or forced to take a drug test without probable cause. The rules change with prisoners, they forfiet those rights when they are found guilty and sentenced. They start out with these rights, when they are sentenced they loose them, and when the sentence is complete, they are supposed to regain them.

Death is the ultimate punishment. Whether it's consistent with Human Rights is another matter entirely. Just because the US executes people, doesn't mean that Human Rights can be taken away in any other manner. This is just you hoping something sticks.

Yes, in prison you have your rights infringed upon. You don't LOSE your right to be secure in your person, you have it infringed upon. You don't have your right taken away, because if you did, there wouldn't be a right, just privileges.

Yes, rules change with prisoners. Why? Because after DUE PROCESS you can have your rights INFRINGED UPON.

As I showed you, the theory of human rights says humans have Human Rights inherently because they are human beings. Prisoners don't stop being human beings.

IT'S LOSE, not loose. Fucking hell. You're trying to argue the case for something, using the English language and you don't know the difference between "I lose my shirt every day" and "My shirt is loose", one is a verb, one is an adjective, you can't use an adjective as a verb, especially when it has a completely different meaning.

They are not infringed upon, they are forfeit. There are still basic “humans rights”, which are different from natural rights. And there are certain rights we afford/grant to our prisoners, out of the sake of being humane. But the definition of human rights is also quite broad, and many things that many may claim as a human right, can come into direct conflict with natural rights. E.G. “I have a right to be believed.” No, you have a right to be heard, but to be believed would come into direct conflict with due process. “I have a right to free birth control.” No, you absolutely have a right to use BC, but not a right to free BC. “I have a right to feel safe from guns/offensive speech/etc.” No because that would conflict with free speech and the 2nd. “I have a right to free healthcare.” No, because that would conflict with property rights. And all these claimed “human rights” require government to positively grant them. So they’re not so much rights, but privileges.

The natural rights on the other hand are only insured by placing negative rights onto the government, so government cannot interfere and the rights can be carried out “naturally.” E.G. “congress shall make no law,” “shall not be infringed.”

I also see you trying to use the word infringe. This doesn’t work for a couple reasons. A. The 2nd clearly says “shall not be infringed.” B. Once infringed upon, they no longer become garunteed rights, they become revocable privileges.

So, you think they're forfeited. Well SHOW SOME EVIDENCE.

I've shown you the UN thing that says that people don't forfeit rights, they have them as long as they are human beings.

Yes, the biggest problem with Rights is that it's not real. They exist because we, as humans, decide they exist.

You're talking about natural rights and human rights like they're different. They're not. Some people call them God Given Rights too, they're all the same.

The theory, however, assumes all people have them. You can't forfeit them. It's that simple. And you can't prove otherwise.

???
I am guessing what you mean here frigidweirdo:
Do you mean like this example:
If someone agrees to be silent and not speak at a meeting because they didn't sign up in advance to speak and the rules require that, then (a) they still retain full right to freedom of speech (b) not being able to speak is not a forfeiture or infringement but (c) they consented by "free choice" to attend the meeting run by those rules.

Is this a fair example of still having the right to free speech?

Next example:
If someone gets banned from a talk show because they cussed during a live broadcast, are you saying they still have the right to free speech but just not under that venue because they broke the rules. Are you okay with someone calling that "forfeiture" even though the person can still exercise free speech in general, so they still have that right?

Please advise on these two scenarios is this is or isn't what you mean, or if it's even close? Thanks!

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear frigidweirdo
All that is missing is that we agree on limits on laws and rights,
similar to agreements on the freedom of speech and press
that cannot be abused to commit slander, libel, harassment, fraud, misrepresentation etc.

As stated before, no laws can be "taken out of context" and abused
so as to violate OTHER laws that are also within the same Bill of Rights and Constitution.

So it is not considered an infringement to check the exercise of rights
by OTHER laws and principles such as
* the right to security in our persons houses and effects
* the equal right to protection of the laws
* the right to due process and not to be deprived of rights and liberties
unless convicted by law of a crime for which the law prescribes such a penalty

Enforcing other parts of the same laws as one context
is NOT generally seen as infringing on those rights.

Again this is what I mean by "the right of the people" as inherently
implying "law abiding citizens" or for the purpose of "defending not violating" the law.
You can call this "well regulated militia"
and people like ChrisL may argue we both mean the PEOPLE
who play that role of policing govt, regardless if you call it militia or "the people who are the government."

Enforcing other laws to check each other
isn't counted as infringement.
We just have to AGREE and resolved any perceived
conflicts, so we AGREE this is ENFORCING laws
and not violating Constitutional rights and principles.

So we agree that "shall no be infringed" doesn't mean that it can't be infringed upon? good.

We agree more than disagree but the terms you use
is what throws people off frigidweirdo

I'd say it more like if you are infringing on the rights of others
by abusing or threatening to abuse weapons, then that's YOU
infringing your own rights. For example, if you abuse "free exercise of religion"
to sacrifice animals or people, that violates other laws, you end up
getting convicted and incarcerated. Well you can't complain that it's
the govt prohibiting you from practicing your religion. Part of your practice
violated OTHER LAWS. So it wasn't about infringing on your religion,
but about your actions that broke OTHER LAWS.

If this is explained in that context frigidweirdo
we would find we agree more than no, and avoid getting stuck in conflict over
the terminology you use that just invokes rejection when people hear that.

You just need a good facilitator to translate back and forth
and you'd be fine. The terms you use are going to shut people
down where they don't hear you. I can look past that and get to
what you mean but most people can't or won't do that much work to listen to you.

I'm not sure exactly what language you thin it is that throws other people off. It's a simple yes or no here, either the RKBA "shall not be infringed" EVER, or it shall be infringed. There are no two ways about it, right?

Dear frigidweirdo but your concept of infringed is going to be different from what infringed means to other ppl, because you don't interpret the meaning and wording of the Second Amendment the same way.

The example I gave for loose comparison is laws on sex marriage and rape: if someone interprets legal sex as within marriage only, that person will not see a law as "govt infringing on rights to have sex" by requiring people to be in a legal state marriage to have sex or else it's rape. One group would argue it's just govt barring rape, but the other group would say it's regulating sex.

If that analogy doesn't work how about abortion. If one person or group interprets abortion as murder and others do not, then they end up arguing in circles because one group keeps pushing for govt to regulate murder and the other group argues the govt doesn't have the authority to regulate free choice they don't consider to be murder.

You and others don't agree on what the law means by the right to bear arms, so your interpretations of what infringement means is going to be similarly "askew" and not aligned on the same page either.

Instead of arguing over infringement per se, you'd be better off spelling out specific rules means or process of screening registering or regulating guns for safety and crime prevention purposes. That doesn't depend on agreeing what you mean by infringement or not, because based on your interpretation alone, ppl will already consider that an infringement and oppose anything in that context which is already set up to be against their beliefs.

Well, I'm sure my concept might be different to other people's concept, because I know what it means and other people make it up. Again, I'm not going to bow down to people who just make shit up, no matter how much you think this is going to help conflict resolution.

Yes, I agree that your examples are problematic and I've had such arguments where it's just a matter of how people think.

But here we're dealing with something more concrete than opinion. We're dealing with how something functions in the US political system.

You might think you have a right to murder, but no matter how much you believe this, the US govt says you're wrong and if you commit murder they will hunt you down.

Rights as a theory have been written about, they cannot be forfeited except on death of the person. It's that simple. No amount of "I don't believe this" will change this fact from being part of US law.

Dear frigidweirdo
1. Regarding no right to murder : what about ppl who consider abortion murder or executions murder. Technically if someone is innocent of a crime, contests getting a capital sentence , but is still put to death by the state, isn't that a form of murder? Isn't that a case where the state can commit murder in essence, but legally never get charged and thus get away with it
2. What about the example of someone having the right to preserve a historic item that they own. But someone steals it or vandalizes it beyond repair.

The owner no longer has the right to preserve it because it is irreparably damaged. For example if a historic house is burned to the ground and there is nothing left to rehab.

Isn't that an example of a right that is permanently taken away?
Or do you mean the person still has right to ownership of property "in general" (just not that particular piece of property )

Is that what you mean by always having that right and never losing it???

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, if you're convicted of a crime you don't lose, nor loose, your rights. You have the INFRINGED UPON.

Rights only exist when EVERYONE has them. If someone doesn't have rights, then no one has rights, they become privileges.


OHCHR | What are Human Rights

"Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible."

So, when someone thinks that the right to keep arms is a human right, then this means that people in China, the UK or other such countries are having this right infringed upon by their governments. The people have these rights as INHERENT within them, simply because they are human beings. Status, like prisoner status, sexual status etc does not erode these rights.

infringe | Definition of infringe in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

"
1.1 Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
‘his legal rights were being infringed’"

Seems someone needs to learn about Human Rights.

Nope wrong again, you have the right to life, but if you can forfeit that right if you commit murder and are sentenced to execution. Or you can be rightfully shoot trying to escape. You have a right to be secure in your person, but in prison they can cavity search you whenever they please, or even a probationer can be searched or forced to take a drug test without probable cause. The rules change with prisoners, they forfiet those rights when they are found guilty and sentenced. They start out with these rights, when they are sentenced they loose them, and when the sentence is complete, they are supposed to regain them.

Death is the ultimate punishment. Whether it's consistent with Human Rights is another matter entirely. Just because the US executes people, doesn't mean that Human Rights can be taken away in any other manner. This is just you hoping something sticks.

Yes, in prison you have your rights infringed upon. You don't LOSE your right to be secure in your person, you have it infringed upon. You don't have your right taken away, because if you did, there wouldn't be a right, just privileges.

Yes, rules change with prisoners. Why? Because after DUE PROCESS you can have your rights INFRINGED UPON.

As I showed you, the theory of human rights says humans have Human Rights inherently because they are human beings. Prisoners don't stop being human beings.

IT'S LOSE, not loose. Fucking hell. You're trying to argue the case for something, using the English language and you don't know the difference between "I lose my shirt every day" and "My shirt is loose", one is a verb, one is an adjective, you can't use an adjective as a verb, especially when it has a completely different meaning.

They are not infringed upon, they are forfeit. There are still basic “humans rights”, which are different from natural rights. And there are certain rights we afford/grant to our prisoners, out of the sake of being humane. But the definition of human rights is also quite broad, and many things that many may claim as a human right, can come into direct conflict with natural rights. E.G. “I have a right to be believed.” No, you have a right to be heard, but to be believed would come into direct conflict with due process. “I have a right to free birth control.” No, you absolutely have a right to use BC, but not a right to free BC. “I have a right to feel safe from guns/offensive speech/etc.” No because that would conflict with free speech and the 2nd. “I have a right to free healthcare.” No, because that would conflict with property rights. And all these claimed “human rights” require government to positively grant them. So they’re not so much rights, but privileges.

The natural rights on the other hand are only insured by placing negative rights onto the government, so government cannot interfere and the rights can be carried out “naturally.” E.G. “congress shall make no law,” “shall not be infringed.”

I also see you trying to use the word infringe. This doesn’t work for a couple reasons. A. The 2nd clearly says “shall not be infringed.” B. Once infringed upon, they no longer become garunteed rights, they become revocable privileges.

So, you think they're forfeited. Well SHOW SOME EVIDENCE.

I've shown you the UN thing that says that people don't forfeit rights, they have them as long as they are human beings.

Yes, the biggest problem with Rights is that it's not real. They exist because we, as humans, decide they exist.

You're talking about natural rights and human rights like they're different. They're not. Some people call them God Given Rights too, they're all the same.

The theory, however, assumes all people have them. You can't forfeit them. It's that simple. And you can't prove otherwise.

???
I am guessing what you mean here frigidweirdo:
Do you mean like this example:
If someone agrees to be silent and not speak at a meeting because they didn't sign up in advance to speak and the rules require that, then (a) they still retain full right to freedom of speech (b) not being able to speak is not a forfeiture or infringement but (c) they consented by "free choice" to attend the meeting run by those rules.

Is this a fair example of still having the right to free speech?

Next example:
If someone gets banned from a talk show because they cussed during a live broadcast, are you saying they still have the right to free speech but just not under that venue because they broke the rules. Are you okay with someone calling that "forfeiture" even though the person can still exercise free speech in general, so they still have that right?

Please advise on these two scenarios is this is or isn't what you mean, or if it's even close? Thanks!

Not really.

The thing here is that humans are assumed to have Human Rights. A person in China has Human Rights as much as a person in the USA. A rich person the same as a poor person. An insane person the same as a lucid person.

However there are times when society deems that some people can't be trusted with certain rights, children for example aren't deemed old enough to have full responsibilities and rights, and the insane, who can only be declared insane after due process.

Others are deemed to have broken the rules. They're laws. We don't say you're stopping being a Human Being, we're saying "you need to have punishment and part of this punishment is that your rights are limited for a period of time". This isn't forfeiture. This is infringement. When the prisoner is out of prison, some of these rights come back.

With guns, people have decided that infringement lasts a lot longer. Perhaps for life.

Just like the assumption is that Chinese people have the right, but it's being infringed for life, the same for some, or all, convicted criminals.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So we agree that "shall no be infringed" doesn't mean that it can't be infringed upon? good.

We agree more than disagree but the terms you use
is what throws people off frigidweirdo

I'd say it more like if you are infringing on the rights of others
by abusing or threatening to abuse weapons, then that's YOU
infringing your own rights. For example, if you abuse "free exercise of religion"
to sacrifice animals or people, that violates other laws, you end up
getting convicted and incarcerated. Well you can't complain that it's
the govt prohibiting you from practicing your religion. Part of your practice
violated OTHER LAWS. So it wasn't about infringing on your religion,
but about your actions that broke OTHER LAWS.

If this is explained in that context frigidweirdo
we would find we agree more than no, and avoid getting stuck in conflict over
the terminology you use that just invokes rejection when people hear that.

You just need a good facilitator to translate back and forth
and you'd be fine. The terms you use are going to shut people
down where they don't hear you. I can look past that and get to
what you mean but most people can't or won't do that much work to listen to you.

I'm not sure exactly what language you thin it is that throws other people off. It's a simple yes or no here, either the RKBA "shall not be infringed" EVER, or it shall be infringed. There are no two ways about it, right?

Dear frigidweirdo but your concept of infringed is going to be different from what infringed means to other ppl, because you don't interpret the meaning and wording of the Second Amendment the same way.

The example I gave for loose comparison is laws on sex marriage and rape: if someone interprets legal sex as within marriage only, that person will not see a law as "govt infringing on rights to have sex" by requiring people to be in a legal state marriage to have sex or else it's rape. One group would argue it's just govt barring rape, but the other group would say it's regulating sex.

If that analogy doesn't work how about abortion. If one person or group interprets abortion as murder and others do not, then they end up arguing in circles because one group keeps pushing for govt to regulate murder and the other group argues the govt doesn't have the authority to regulate free choice they don't consider to be murder.

You and others don't agree on what the law means by the right to bear arms, so your interpretations of what infringement means is going to be similarly "askew" and not aligned on the same page either.

Instead of arguing over infringement per se, you'd be better off spelling out specific rules means or process of screening registering or regulating guns for safety and crime prevention purposes. That doesn't depend on agreeing what you mean by infringement or not, because based on your interpretation alone, ppl will already consider that an infringement and oppose anything in that context which is already set up to be against their beliefs.

Well, I'm sure my concept might be different to other people's concept, because I know what it means and other people make it up. Again, I'm not going to bow down to people who just make shit up, no matter how much you think this is going to help conflict resolution.

Yes, I agree that your examples are problematic and I've had such arguments where it's just a matter of how people think.

But here we're dealing with something more concrete than opinion. We're dealing with how something functions in the US political system.

You might think you have a right to murder, but no matter how much you believe this, the US govt says you're wrong and if you commit murder they will hunt you down.

Rights as a theory have been written about, they cannot be forfeited except on death of the person. It's that simple. No amount of "I don't believe this" will change this fact from being part of US law.

Dear frigidweirdo
1. Regarding no right to murder : what about ppl who consider abortion murder or executions murder. Technically if someone is innocent of a crime, contests getting a capital sentence , but is still put to death by the state, isn't that a form of murder? Isn't that a case where the state can commit murder in essence, but legally never get charged and thus get away with it
2. What about the example of someone having the right to preserve a historic item that they own. But someone steals it or vandalizes it beyond repair.

The owner no longer has the right to preserve it because it is irreparably damaged. For example if a historic house is burned to the ground and there is nothing left to rehab.

Isn't that an example of a right that is permanently taken away?
Or do you mean the person still has right to ownership of property "in general" (just not that particular piece of property )

Is that what you mean by always having that right and never losing it???

Yes, abortion is one of those issues where it's about how you view things. The conflict is there, it's for society to make such decisions. I can have my opinion, which I do, and others will have their opinion, which they do.

Is execution a form of murder? Yes, it's merely the term for legalized murder.

Well, if someone steals something, then they've done something wrong. I'm not really sure where you're going with this.

A right isn't a physical thing. It exists because we as humans exist. The right assumes EVERYONE has the rights, if not everyone has them, then it's not a right, it's a privilege. So everyone in China has the rights as much as anyone in the US. They're just infringed upon.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The second amendment is actually the basic human right to self defense.

TroglocratsRdumb
I call it "right of defense".
So it applies to military and personal defense, not just self defense but defending others, and the focus is on defending laws not committing offense.

( I also believe ppl should have equal access to legal defense, as an extension of the concept , using the civil process in place of firearm weaponry, for people who don't believe in militant use of weapons but prefer a nonviolent civil approach to resolving conflicts. So that those ppl have equal legal protection as others.)

There's a big difference between self defense and the defense of the country. The Founders made these distinctions.

 

[sakinago]

Nope wrong again, you have the right to life, but if you can forfeit that right if you commit murder and are sentenced to execution. Or you can be rightfully shoot trying to escape. You have a right to be secure in your person, but in prison they can cavity search you whenever they please, or even a probationer can be searched or forced to take a drug test without probable cause. The rules change with prisoners, they forfiet those rights when they are found guilty and sentenced. They start out with these rights, when they are sentenced they loose them, and when the sentence is complete, they are supposed to regain them.

Death is the ultimate punishment. Whether it's consistent with Human Rights is another matter entirely. Just because the US executes people, doesn't mean that Human Rights can be taken away in any other manner. This is just you hoping something sticks.

Yes, in prison you have your rights infringed upon. You don't LOSE your right to be secure in your person, you have it infringed upon. You don't have your right taken away, because if you did, there wouldn't be a right, just privileges.

Yes, rules change with prisoners. Why? Because after DUE PROCESS you can have your rights INFRINGED UPON.

As I showed you, the theory of human rights says humans have Human Rights inherently because they are human beings. Prisoners don't stop being human beings.

IT'S LOSE, not loose. Fucking hell. You're trying to argue the case for something, using the English language and you don't know the difference between "I lose my shirt every day" and "My shirt is loose", one is a verb, one is an adjective, you can't use an adjective as a verb, especially when it has a completely different meaning.

They are not infringed upon, they are forfeit. There are still basic “humans rights”, which are different from natural rights. And there are certain rights we afford/grant to our prisoners, out of the sake of being humane. But the definition of human rights is also quite broad, and many things that many may claim as a human right, can come into direct conflict with natural rights. E.G. “I have a right to be believed.” No, you have a right to be heard, but to be believed would come into direct conflict with due process. “I have a right to free birth control.” No, you absolutely have a right to use BC, but not a right to free BC. “I have a right to feel safe from guns/offensive speech/etc.” No because that would conflict with free speech and the 2nd. “I have a right to free healthcare.” No, because that would conflict with property rights. And all these claimed “human rights” require government to positively grant them. So they’re not so much rights, but privileges.

The natural rights on the other hand are only insured by placing negative rights onto the government, so government cannot interfere and the rights can be carried out “naturally.” E.G. “congress shall make no law,” “shall not be infringed.”

I also see you trying to use the word infringe. This doesn’t work for a couple reasons. A. The 2nd clearly says “shall not be infringed.” B. Once infringed upon, they no longer become garunteed rights, they become revocable privileges.

So, you think they're forfeited. Well SHOW SOME EVIDENCE.

I've shown you the UN thing that says that people don't forfeit rights, they have them as long as they are human beings.

Yes, the biggest problem with Rights is that it's not real. They exist because we, as humans, decide they exist.

You're talking about natural rights and human rights like they're different. They're not. Some people call them God Given Rights too, they're all the same.

The theory, however, assumes all people have them. You can't forfeit them. It's that simple. And you can't prove otherwise.

The evidence is in our prisoners. You can come up with whatever alternative reality you want. Their rights are forfeit, you go where they tell you, eat when they tell you, work when they tell you, wear what they tell you, you can only get what they allow you, they search you when they want to with/without your permission and without a warrant or probable cause, and if you are condemned to execution, you are killed. That’s the reality. We grant them certain privileges, those are not the same as rights. The “rights” they have are limited to being kept alive, in “livable” conditions. Outside of that, anything that can be revoked, or “infringed” as you like to state it, is not a right. You can try to argue they are rights, they’re not, that’s a misnomer, they are privileges.

No, the evidence isn't the prisoners.

You say they've had their rights forfeited, I say they've had them infringed upon. Either way they don't have their freedom.

Basically you have nothing. No evidence at all. Great.

That’s the discussion topic...prisoners, and they absolutely are evidence. Evidence is found in reality. They forfeit their right to weapons including firearms, among many many other things. Sometimes they even loose their right to life (which is probably the most important “human right”), I mean after you loose that it kind of makes the rest of your “rights” useless. That’s not an infringement, there’s zero middle ground on right to life. I’m not getting into your asinine appeal to ignorance, in this asinine red herring, for a downhill argument.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Death is the ultimate punishment. Whether it's consistent with Human Rights is another matter entirely. Just because the US executes people, doesn't mean that Human Rights can be taken away in any other manner. This is just you hoping something sticks.

Yes, in prison you have your rights infringed upon. You don't LOSE your right to be secure in your person, you have it infringed upon. You don't have your right taken away, because if you did, there wouldn't be a right, just privileges.

Yes, rules change with prisoners. Why? Because after DUE PROCESS you can have your rights INFRINGED UPON.

As I showed you, the theory of human rights says humans have Human Rights inherently because they are human beings. Prisoners don't stop being human beings.

IT'S LOSE, not loose. Fucking hell. You're trying to argue the case for something, using the English language and you don't know the difference between "I lose my shirt every day" and "My shirt is loose", one is a verb, one is an adjective, you can't use an adjective as a verb, especially when it has a completely different meaning.

They are not infringed upon, they are forfeit. There are still basic “humans rights”, which are different from natural rights. And there are certain rights we afford/grant to our prisoners, out of the sake of being humane. But the definition of human rights is also quite broad, and many things that many may claim as a human right, can come into direct conflict with natural rights. E.G. “I have a right to be believed.” No, you have a right to be heard, but to be believed would come into direct conflict with due process. “I have a right to free birth control.” No, you absolutely have a right to use BC, but not a right to free BC. “I have a right to feel safe from guns/offensive speech/etc.” No because that would conflict with free speech and the 2nd. “I have a right to free healthcare.” No, because that would conflict with property rights. And all these claimed “human rights” require government to positively grant them. So they’re not so much rights, but privileges.

The natural rights on the other hand are only insured by placing negative rights onto the government, so government cannot interfere and the rights can be carried out “naturally.” E.G. “congress shall make no law,” “shall not be infringed.”

I also see you trying to use the word infringe. This doesn’t work for a couple reasons. A. The 2nd clearly says “shall not be infringed.” B. Once infringed upon, they no longer become garunteed rights, they become revocable privileges.

So, you think they're forfeited. Well SHOW SOME EVIDENCE.

I've shown you the UN thing that says that people don't forfeit rights, they have them as long as they are human beings.

Yes, the biggest problem with Rights is that it's not real. They exist because we, as humans, decide they exist.

You're talking about natural rights and human rights like they're different. They're not. Some people call them God Given Rights too, they're all the same.

The theory, however, assumes all people have them. You can't forfeit them. It's that simple. And you can't prove otherwise.

The evidence is in our prisoners. You can come up with whatever alternative reality you want. Their rights are forfeit, you go where they tell you, eat when they tell you, work when they tell you, wear what they tell you, you can only get what they allow you, they search you when they want to with/without your permission and without a warrant or probable cause, and if you are condemned to execution, you are killed. That’s the reality. We grant them certain privileges, those are not the same as rights. The “rights” they have are limited to being kept alive, in “livable” conditions. Outside of that, anything that can be revoked, or “infringed” as you like to state it, is not a right. You can try to argue they are rights, they’re not, that’s a misnomer, they are privileges.

No, the evidence isn't the prisoners.

You say they've had their rights forfeited, I say they've had them infringed upon. Either way they don't have their freedom.

Basically you have nothing. No evidence at all. Great.

That’s the discussion topic...prisoners, and they absolutely are evidence. Evidence is found in reality. They forfeit their right to weapons including firearms, among many many other things. Sometimes they even loose their right to life (which is probably the most important “human right”), I mean after you loose that it kind of makes the rest of your “rights” useless. That’s not an infringement, there’s zero middle ground on right to life. I’m not getting into your asinine appeal to ignorance, in this asinine red herring, for a downhill argument.

No, you haven't shown they've forfeited their rights. That's the problem.

Have the Chinese forfeited their rights? Because they also don't have certain rights.

Prisoners have some rights while in prison, the Chinese have some rights in China.

Again, and AGAIN and AGAIN. The UN says that all humans have HUMAN RIGHTS as a part of being a HUMAN BEING. That they don't lose these rights based on status, gender, whatever.

You ignore this EVERY SINGLE FUCKING TIME.

And for FUCK'S SAKE, you can't even write lose properly. How am I expecting you to actually get around to understand what the UN said?

You don't understand Human Rights, you don't understand English words, you don't understand the UN Convention of Human Rights. You understand NOTHING and yet you're here pretending to have a debate and you're going around using words like "asinine" to describe what I'm talking about.

I'm losing my patience.

 

[sakinago]

They are not infringed upon, they are forfeit. There are still basic “humans rights”, which are different from natural rights. And there are certain rights we afford/grant to our prisoners, out of the sake of being humane. But the definition of human rights is also quite broad, and many things that many may claim as a human right, can come into direct conflict with natural rights. E.G. “I have a right to be believed.” No, you have a right to be heard, but to be believed would come into direct conflict with due process. “I have a right to free birth control.” No, you absolutely have a right to use BC, but not a right to free BC. “I have a right to feel safe from guns/offensive speech/etc.” No because that would conflict with free speech and the 2nd. “I have a right to free healthcare.” No, because that would conflict with property rights. And all these claimed “human rights” require government to positively grant them. So they’re not so much rights, but privileges.

The natural rights on the other hand are only insured by placing negative rights onto the government, so government cannot interfere and the rights can be carried out “naturally.” E.G. “congress shall make no law,” “shall not be infringed.”

I also see you trying to use the word infringe. This doesn’t work for a couple reasons. A. The 2nd clearly says “shall not be infringed.” B. Once infringed upon, they no longer become garunteed rights, they become revocable privileges.

So, you think they're forfeited. Well SHOW SOME EVIDENCE.

I've shown you the UN thing that says that people don't forfeit rights, they have them as long as they are human beings.

Yes, the biggest problem with Rights is that it's not real. They exist because we, as humans, decide they exist.

You're talking about natural rights and human rights like they're different. They're not. Some people call them God Given Rights too, they're all the same.

The theory, however, assumes all people have them. You can't forfeit them. It's that simple. And you can't prove otherwise.

The evidence is in our prisoners. You can come up with whatever alternative reality you want. Their rights are forfeit, you go where they tell you, eat when they tell you, work when they tell you, wear what they tell you, you can only get what they allow you, they search you when they want to with/without your permission and without a warrant or probable cause, and if you are condemned to execution, you are killed. That’s the reality. We grant them certain privileges, those are not the same as rights. The “rights” they have are limited to being kept alive, in “livable” conditions. Outside of that, anything that can be revoked, or “infringed” as you like to state it, is not a right. You can try to argue they are rights, they’re not, that’s a misnomer, they are privileges.

No, the evidence isn't the prisoners.

You say they've had their rights forfeited, I say they've had them infringed upon. Either way they don't have their freedom.

Basically you have nothing. No evidence at all. Great.

That’s the discussion topic...prisoners, and they absolutely are evidence. Evidence is found in reality. They forfeit their right to weapons including firearms, among many many other things. Sometimes they even loose their right to life (which is probably the most important “human right”), I mean after you loose that it kind of makes the rest of your “rights” useless. That’s not an infringement, there’s zero middle ground on right to life. I’m not getting into your asinine appeal to ignorance, in this asinine red herring, for a downhill argument.

No, you haven't shown they've forfeited their rights. That's the problem.

Have the Chinese forfeited their rights? Because they also don't have certain rights.

Prisoners have some rights while in prison, the Chinese have some rights in China.

Again, and AGAIN and AGAIN. The UN says that all humans have HUMAN RIGHTS as a part of being a HUMAN BEING. That they don't lose these rights based on status, gender, whatever.

You ignore this EVERY SINGLE FUCKING TIME.

And for FUCK'S SAKE, you can't even write lose properly. How am I expecting you to actually get around to understand what the UN said?

You don't understand Human Rights, you don't understand English words, you don't understand the UN Convention of Human Rights. You understand NOTHING and yet you're here pretending to have a debate and you're going around using words like "asinine" to describe what I'm talking about.

I'm losing my patience.

Well then, I guess every single country, with a justice system that imprisons people is in violation of international human rights laws. Kind of weird how the UN, made up of countries that all violate human rights in this way, made up some hypocritical human rights laws....

Or they justly deny them their civil rights since they found the people guilty of crimes, guilty...So when someone knowingly commits a crime, that knowingly can lead to prison, they kind of take that risk don’t they?