Why does the President have armed guards?

[G.T.]

What EXACTLY are these inalienable rights?

Impossible to list them all, which is why the Constitution does not attempt to do so. What it does say is that no government can grant or take away these rights we're all born with.

Kings were in favor of granting rights to those he favored. Didn't work out so well.

The concept of "no Government can grant or take these rights away" -

Became a concept, when they declared it so.

How did they arrive at said concept?

Come on - I was challenged and I would like to have a reasoned discussion instead of a sideswipe.

 

[eflatminor]

What EXACTLY are these inalienable rights?

Impossible to list them all, which is why the Constitution does not attempt to do so. What it does say is that no government can grant or take away these rights we're all born with.

Kings were in favor of granting rights to those he favored. Didn't work out so well.

The concept of "no Government can grant or take these rights away" -

Became a concept, when they declared it so.

How did they arrive at said concept?

Come on - I was challenged and I would like to have a reasoned discussion instead of a sideswipe.

Look, I don't buy your bullshit that because men wrote the Constitution, which acknowledged inalienable rights, that men should be able to violate the law and assume to grant or remove those rights, whatever the reason. We have these rights at birth whether you like it or not. It is what made America unique in the history of nations...and it's worked.

 

[G.T.]

Impossible to list them all, which is why the Constitution does not attempt to do so. What it does say is that no government can grant or take away these rights we're all born with.

Kings were in favor of granting rights to those he favored. Didn't work out so well.

The concept of "no Government can grant or take these rights away" -

Became a concept, when they declared it so.

How did they arrive at said concept?

Come on - I was challenged and I would like to have a reasoned discussion instead of a sideswipe.

Look, I don't buy your bullshit that because men wrote the Constitution, which acknowledged inalienable rights, that men should be able to violate the law and assume to grant or remove those rights, whatever the reason. We have these rights at birth whether you like it or not. It is what made America unique in the history of nations...and it's worked.

Thats an emotional response, not a reasoned logical one though.

And I said nothing of anyone being able to Violate anything.

You need to logically argue things if you're going to argue at all, man. That's all.

My question is, what made them inalienable, when exactly did they become inalienable, and how was it arrived at that they were inalienable.

I gave my answer: by men thinking rationally as to how to optimally co-exist.

 

[eflatminor]

And I said nothing of anyone being able to Violate anything.

Then there's nothing to discuss. You keep it that way and nobody cares how the idea of inalienable rights came about. We just know the concept works beautifully when compared to centrally planned societies where rights are up to the whims of those in charge.

 

[G.T.]

And I said nothing of anyone being able to Violate anything.

Then there's nothing to discuss. You keep it that way and nobody cares how the idea of inalienable rights came about. We just know the concept works beautifully when compared to centrally planned societies where rights are up to the whims of those in charge.

You miss the point of the discussion.

The men who declared which rights are inalienable are those persons you were, indeed, at the whims of.

 

[eflatminor]

And I said nothing of anyone being able to Violate anything.

Then there's nothing to discuss. You keep it that way and nobody cares how the idea of inalienable rights came about. We just know the concept works beautifully when compared to centrally planned societies where rights are up to the whims of those in charge.

You miss the point of the discussion.

The men who declared which rights are inalienable are those persons you were, indeed, at the whims of.

Nope, you missed the point. The men who founded this country never declared which rights are and which rights are not inalienable. That's the point - no one could possible list all the rights we're born with so instead, we put into place a law of the land that:
1) acknowledges there are many, many rights that cannot be granted or removed;
2) Requires due process for any right to be taken away; and
2) LIMITS the ability of the government meddle in any area other than those enumerated powers.

This way, nobody is at the whim of any government agent. The only way to suffer a loss of rights is under due process, which is spelled out for everyone to see in those enumerated powers.

 

[LoneLaugher]

But they were SPECIAL men. Like supermen.

 

[Koios]

Every abled male could part of the militia in the days of the founders.

No argument. But then, they should all be WELL REGULATED!!! (pursuant to the 2A)

 

[eflatminor]

But they were SPECIAL men. Like supermen.

No, but it's a special document, this law of the land. We were the first to limit government to powers listed in Constitution (at least that was the idea). We were the first to say your rights are yours and cannot be taken away without due process. We were the first to embrace liberty.

You suggesting things were better under Kings and those that ruled by birthright?

 

[eflatminor]

Every abled male could part of the militia in the days of the founders.

No argument. But then, they should all be WELL REGULATED!!! (pursuant to the 2A)

I agree, every capable man should be well armed.

 

[G.T.]

But they were SPECIAL men. Like supermen.

No, but it's a special document, this law of the land. We were the first to limit government to powers listed in Constitution (at least that was the idea). We were the first to say your rights are yours and cannot be taken away without due process. We were the first to embrace liberty.

You suggesting things were better under Kings and those that ruled by birthright?

It's all still relegated back to being the decision of men.

Men decide which rights are and are not inalienable.

(answering this post and your one before it).

 

[boedicca]

Every abled male could part of the militia in the days of the founders.

No argument. But then, they should all be WELL REGULATED!!! (pursuant to the 2A)

I doubt you understand what Well Regulated meant in the 1700s. The usage back then meant to properly function or operate - and had nothing to do with the modern "government regulation".

 

[Koios]

Please look up the second Amendment to see that IT'S a RIGHT.

Ah Matt; you missed the part about why? Whoduh thunk?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So what's a well regulated militia? Maybe what types of weapons they should have? Where and how they might be used? Imagine that. Not the just guvmint regulation. WELL REGULATED!!!

Well regulated means well armed. And this is settled law. You don't have to be in a militia (though it would be easy to form them) to have the right to bear arms. Good gravy you guys couldn't be this thick.

Correct. And in musicology, E flat, means driveling idiot.

BTW,

The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained".[120] In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."[121]

In Federalist No. 29, Alexander Hamilton suggested that well-regulated refers not only to "organizing", "disciplining", and "training" the militia, but also to "arming" the militia:


This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress."[48]


A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.[48]


"If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security...confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority...(and) reserving to the states...the authority of training the militia".[48]

Note that Al Hamilton used "armed" as in how-so-armed. (read: Uniformitiy). You sure you want Al's take on that? Hmmm?

 

[LoneLaugher]

But they were SPECIAL men. Like supermen.

No, but it's a special document, this law of the land. We were the first to limit government to powers listed in Constitution (at least that was the idea). We were the first to say your rights are yours and cannot be taken away without due process. We were the first to embrace liberty.

You suggesting things were better under Kings and those that ruled by birthright?

Bullshit.

You act as though those men were not influenced by precedent. What a warm and fuzzy Historian you are.

 

[P@triot]

Just wondering

Kennedy, Ford, Reagan and that's just in my lifetime.

Wow, THREE whole people?!? And two of them didn't even die

More than 3 people are the victims of violent crime in any given 15 minute span in the U.S. and yet the left doesn't believe guns are justified for us "little, worthless people".

But 1 death by a U.S. president over the past 60+ years and by God a heavily armed team of security personnel is justified...

 

[eflatminor]

But they were SPECIAL men. Like supermen.

No, but it's a special document, this law of the land. We were the first to limit government to powers listed in Constitution (at least that was the idea). We were the first to say your rights are yours and cannot be taken away without due process. We were the first to embrace liberty.

You suggesting things were better under Kings and those that ruled by birthright?

It's all still relegated back to being the decision of men.

Men decide which rights are and are not inalienable.

(answering this post and your one before it).

No, men do not decide which rights are inalienable. Men, through due process, can decide to take away a right, inalienable or not. Big difference.

Think of it this way: When someone is found guilty of a felony, the jury doesn't say "What you did is no longer a right". The jury says "You're guilty" and by this due process, were putting you in jail. While that takes away inalienable rights from the guilty, it does not involve "deciding which rights are and are not inalienable". It just say due process has been followed, so don't bitch about losing any rights.

 

[P@triot]

Just wondering

Bigots, crazies, teabaggers, glenn beck, fox news...

A 400% increase on threat to POTUS since Obama took office due to all of the above.

There has been more than a 400% increase in violent crime since Chicago outlawed guns, yet you don't seem to be advocating for changes there...

There is nothing more amusing than pointing out how the dumbocrat contradicts themselves with each breath...

 

[eflatminor]

But they were SPECIAL men. Like supermen.

No, but it's a special document, this law of the land. We were the first to limit government to powers listed in Constitution (at least that was the idea). We were the first to say your rights are yours and cannot be taken away without due process. We were the first to embrace liberty.

You suggesting things were better under Kings and those that ruled by birthright?

Bullshit.

You act as though those men were not influenced by precedent. What a warm and fuzzy Historian you are.

Well, at least you've backed up your claim with logic, reason and specificity. No fuzzy logic there...

 

[TruthSeeker56]

Obama's got the best "unarmed guard" in the world. Joe Biden.

The specter of a "President Joe Biden" is enough to make every potential Obama assassin drop his sniper rifle and run away, screaming in terror.

 

[G.T.]

No, but it's a special document, this law of the land. We were the first to limit government to powers listed in Constitution (at least that was the idea). We were the first to say your rights are yours and cannot be taken away without due process. We were the first to embrace liberty.

You suggesting things were better under Kings and those that ruled by birthright?

It's all still relegated back to being the decision of men.

Men decide which rights are and are not inalienable.

(answering this post and your one before it).

No, men do not decide which rights are inalienable. Men, through due process, can decide to take away a right, inalienable or not. Big difference.

Think of it this way: When someone is found guilty of a felony, the jury doesn't say "What you did is no longer a right". The jury says "You're guilty" and by this due process, were putting you in jail. While that takes away inalienable rights from the guilty, it does not involve "deciding which rights are and are not inalienable". It just say due process has been followed, so don't bitch about losing any rights.

But men are the ones that declared that inalienable rights even exist.

I think you're scapegoating the point.

The source of said rights.

Self evident - is my opinion. Which means that the concept was arrived at intellectually.

Endowed by our creator, is the Religious opinion. The one which I'm disagreeing.

The Religious believe that if you do not accept that they are endowed on us by a creator, that they can easily be taken away. I reject that, out of hand. For obvious reasons to anyone with a lick of sense.