Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: "Why petend to have a Bill of Rights?" K. L. Schaub Great P&C Letter to the Editor

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,166

    "Why petend to have a Bill of Rights?" K. L. Schaub Great P&C Letter to the Editor

    "[ ... ] I can't believe The Post and Courier honestly would suggest that "rights granted by the government can be limited by the government when necessary." Really? If that were so, why pretend to have a Bill of Rights? Would The Post and Courier say the same thing about the First Amendment? How about the Fourth or Fifth? Does that little "limited when necessary" caveat cover those amendments also? [ ... ]
    Traffic laws and stop sign analogies don't stand up. Let's face it, "we the people" do not have an "inalienable," God-given right to drive. "We the people" do have an ironclad right to keep and bear arms and enjoy freedom of speech and freedom of the press. That is as long as we have a nation of laws, not men, and we don't rationalize absolute rights away with "limited when necessary. [my emphasis]"

    http://www.postandcourier.com/articl...40319410/1025/

    It's wonderful that this letter came from the heart of Lil' Joe's bailiwick.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    It was nice, back in the day, when LTEs included the article/story that was being ranted against. Oh, how far Charleston seems to have fallen. Not the P&C, they been like that ever since I was knee high to fox squirrel.

    Besides, Mr. Schaub lives on Daniel Island, and should know better. Likely a yankee transplant.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    25
    [QUOTE=Nightmare;2044877]"[ ... ] I can't believe The Post and Courier honestly would suggest that "rights granted by the government can be limited by the government when necessary." Really?

    Government's do not grant right's. Government's only infringe on right's. Right's are self inherent and exist without the government's permission.

  4. #4
    Regular Member fjpro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    300

    Let's work together!!

    If we can all agree that our problems are huge and growing bigger every day, then we should agree that to solve or at least ameliorate them, we HAVE to work together. There are thousands of things we can do almost every day such as talk to the public when given the opportunity, vote and encourage other like minded citizens to vote, promote open carry rallies, get very involved in local election of public school officials to stop the brainwashing of our children, etc. etc. Don't get me wrong. It is healthy for us to disagree on this site, but it would be a good idea to temper down the "ad hominem" attacks that happen now and then. We have way too much to lose. Would it really be such a bad idea, for example, to invite a few LEO's to an open carry breakfast? In my opinion, we can be both resolute and civil. I am not getting teary-eyed, but you have no idea how much rspect (couldn't resist) I have for the members of this site regardless of whether they have been engaged in shouting matches or not.

  5. #5
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    Quote Originally Posted by fjpro2a View Post
    If we can all agree that our problems are huge and growing bigger every day, then we should agree that to solve or at least ameliorate them, we HAVE to work together. There are thousands of things we can do almost every day such as talk to the public when given the opportunity, vote and encourage other like minded citizens to vote, promote open carry rallies, get very involved in local election of public school officials to stop the brainwashing of our children, etc. etc. Don't get me wrong. It is healthy for us to disagree on this site, but it would be a good idea to temper down the "ad hominem" attacks that happen now and then. We have way too much to lose. Would it really be such a bad idea, for example, to invite a few LEO's to an open carry breakfast? In my opinion, we can be both resolute and civil. I am not getting teary-eyed, but you have no idea how much respect (couldn't resist) I have for the members of this site regardless of whether they have been engaged in shouting matches or not.
    This is the South Carolina sub-forum....OC is verboten in SC.

    The P&C differs from the Atlanta Urinal Constipation in scale only. The P&C editorial pages have been a longtime detractor of our 2A right in SC. In fact, they actively work to diminish our 2A right in SC. They deserve no such consideration or politeness.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    134

    Yankee Transplant

    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    It was nice, back in the day, when LTEs included the article/story that was being ranted against. Oh, how far Charleston seems to have fallen. Not the P&C, they been like that ever since I was knee high to fox squirrel.

    Besides, Mr. Schaub lives on Daniel Island, and should know better. Likely a yankee transplant.
    I'm a Yankee Transplant but I do not believe that the government should, in any way, be able to "restrict" a right granted under the constitution. If the right is granted, it is an unrestricted right, plain and simple. My retort to those who want to impose "limited restrictions" on gun related rights, such as magazine capacity, no pistol grips on rifles, no assault weapons, etc is "how would you like it if the government told you that you could not speak against the government in public?" You probably would cry that it would be an infringement of your right to free speech and that no such "restriction" should be placed on that right. Indeed, when reporters are "restricted" by the government in reporting their stories, they all cry foul and "freedom of the press" as a virtual first comeback to challenge the authority of the government to try to restrict their news reporting. Or the government told you that your church was not one of the "recognized" churches in this country, and that therefore, you were not allowed to attend. Same situation with the 2A. You can't make any restrictions on a granted "right" or it is no longer a right. Even chipping away a little bit by so called "common sense" restrictions can not be allowed. People get upset because they equate guns with violence, and they don't want to deal with violence. Fine, I don't want to deal with it either but taking away my gun is not going to stop violence in our society. The only way to stop violence against yourself is to be adequately armed to protect yourself and your family, so that some criminal knows that perhaps you, the victim, may have the means to fight back, defend yourself and kill him justifiably if he tries to injure you or your family. "Chipping" away at the 2A is no different than saying that "you cant' speak against the government in public". That could be viewed as a "common sense" restriction as far as those currently in power might see it, but in terms of violating the bill of rights, it's not allowable. In a similar manner, restrictions on the 2A are also not allowable, imo.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    [QUOTE=defcon4;2044895]
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    "[ ... ] I can't believe The Post and Courier honestly would suggest that "rights granted by the government can be limited by the government when necessary." Really?

    Government's do not grant right's. Government's only infringe on right's. Right's are self inherent and exist without the government's permission.
    sounds something like eye would say....but accurate as well from defcon4 (whew! hope he does not change his name!)
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 03-18-2014 at 04:50 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    Quote Originally Posted by RK3369 View Post
    I'm a Yankee Transplant but I do not believe that the government should, in any way, be able to "restrict" a right granted under the constitution. If the right is granted, it is an unrestricted right, plain and simple. My retort to those who want to impose "limited restrictions" on gun related rights, such as magazine capacity, no pistol grips on rifles, no assault weapons, etc is "how would you like it if the government told you that you could not speak against the government in public?" You probably would cry that it would be an infringement of your right to free speech and that no such "restriction" should be placed on that right. Indeed, when reporters are "restricted" by the government in reporting their stories, they all cry foul and "freedom of the press" as a virtual first comeback to challenge the authority of the government to try to restrict their news reporting. Or the government told you that your church was not one of the "recognized" churches in this country, and that therefore, you were not allowed to attend. Same situation with the 2A. You can't make any restrictions on a granted "right" or it is no longer a right. Even chipping away a little bit by so called "common sense" restrictions can not be allowed. People get upset because they equate guns with violence, and they don't want to deal with violence. Fine, I don't want to deal with it either but taking away my gun is not going to stop violence in our society. The only way to stop violence against yourself is to be adequately armed to protect yourself and your family, so that some criminal knows that perhaps you, the victim, may have the means to fight back, defend yourself and kill him justifiably if he tries to injure you or your family. "Chipping" away at the 2A is no different than saying that "you cant' speak against the government in public". That could be viewed as a "common sense" restriction as far as those currently in power might see it, but in terms of violating the bill of rights, it's not allowable. In a similar manner, restrictions on the 2A are also not allowable, imo.
    Well stated.

    Rights recognized, affirmed, or enumerated, not granted. But, this is just a nit.

    I take umbrage at Mr. Schaub taking the P&C's editorial page(s) seriously. A Charlestonian, and more broadly a South Carolinian, knows better.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •