-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Universal Gun Care
- Thread starter gogodawgs
- Start date
simmonsjoe
Regular Member
imported post
Win.
I've seen similar about 1A books having all the 'reasonable restrictions' as @a control advocates. It's an eye opener.
Win.
I've seen similar about 1A books having all the 'reasonable restrictions' as @a control advocates. It's an eye opener.
ABNinfantryman
Regular Member
imported post
There is no such thing as a right not found in the constitution.
Amendment IX
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
There is no such thing as a right not found in the constitution.
Amendment IX
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
fighting_for_freedom
Regular Member
imported post
ABNinfantryman wrote:
ABNinfantryman wrote:
True, however.... the rights not enumerated are traditionally, and rightfully so, are determined based on rights commonly recognized at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. To imply that newly recognized rights are protected by the Constitution is treading on dangerous ground. Like the right to health care. There is nothing in history that implies a right to health care. Just as there is nothing in history that says that we have the right to free government-provided transportation. Or the right to use meth. The only things we truly have the right to are the freedoms of thought, self-preservation, life, and the ability to provide for ourselves in order to provide for a better life.
ABNinfantryman
Regular Member
imported post
Alamo Jack wrote:
So do I have the right to put what I want into my body or does the government have the power to dictate to me that I do not have permission to do so? According to the people of the late 18th century I do.
Alamo Jack wrote:
By that line of reasoning, I have never seen that legal opinion anywhere (if you have please enlighten me), your example of "The right to use meth" would be wrong in your ascertion that it's not a right acknowledged by the people of the time. Controlled substances were not regulated at all until the late 1800s and early 1900s and really took off during prohibition. Some of the fore fathers were known to chase the dragon from time to time in brothels. Drug use of marijuana, cocaine (coca cola anyone?), opium, alcohol, peyote, all were common and not frowned upon until the rise of Evangelical Christian churches which started dictating their "faith" on the people by scaring the people with BS stories of drug crazed blacks and mexicans who would rape white women.
So do I have the right to put what I want into my body or does the government have the power to dictate to me that I do not have permission to do so? According to the people of the late 18th century I do.
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Alamo Jack wrote:
I disagree that it's treading on dangerous ground; at least not if everyone's rights are respected as they should be. For instance, you most certainly do have the right to health care, but there is a limiting factor, my right to not have you take my money. I believe (and believe our founders believed)that the only restrictions on our rights should be the equal rights of others.
I think you should check a little more into what "Rights" actually are.Since rights aren't granted by our goverment, the 9th makes even more sense. It's almost like saying:
"we couldn't possibly enumerate all of the rights of the people so we just stuck in the important ones we could think of but they are in no way limited by this document."
The constitution tells the goverment what specific powers it has and some specific rights it can't touch. Any power not listed is not given to the goverment by the people; however, the catchall is that any power not listed is given to the people or to the states but any right is only given to the people.Your "right" to healthcare can not be limted by the goverment, but it most certainly is limited by my right to property.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Rights come solely from the people and are inherrent in them. Goverment can not have rights and may not (even though they do because we let them) infringe upon them. Due process of law may disable rights but that means a jury, which is the people.
I know I rambled on here; I hope I got my point across without too much confusion.
Alamo Jack wrote:
I disagree that it's treading on dangerous ground; at least not if everyone's rights are respected as they should be. For instance, you most certainly do have the right to health care, but there is a limiting factor, my right to not have you take my money. I believe (and believe our founders believed)that the only restrictions on our rights should be the equal rights of others.
I think you should check a little more into what "Rights" actually are.Since rights aren't granted by our goverment, the 9th makes even more sense. It's almost like saying:
"we couldn't possibly enumerate all of the rights of the people so we just stuck in the important ones we could think of but they are in no way limited by this document."
The constitution tells the goverment what specific powers it has and some specific rights it can't touch. Any power not listed is not given to the goverment by the people; however, the catchall is that any power not listed is given to the people or to the states but any right is only given to the people.Your "right" to healthcare can not be limted by the goverment, but it most certainly is limited by my right to property.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Rights come solely from the people and are inherrent in them. Goverment can not have rights and may not (even though they do because we let them) infringe upon them. Due process of law may disable rights but that means a jury, which is the people.
I know I rambled on here; I hope I got my point across without too much confusion.
fighting_for_freedom
Regular Member
imported post
Ok, Ok maybe I was a little vague there. What I meant was: Nobody has the right to have health care provided to them at other's expense. Sure, we all have the right to get health care, but that burden should be solely on ourselves. Nobody else should have to pay for my doctor's bills.
As far as drugs go, sure there are harmless drugs. I have no problem with pot. But some of the harder drugs like meth have the nasty side effects of causing mental disorders. This results (I'm not going to post statistics or anything. I think everybody knows enough about meth to understand) in high crime rates among users. Theft, rape, murder. Three big ones that infringe on other's rights to be safe in their possessions, their person, and their life.
I firmly believe in small government and more rights. I hate how much the government tells us what we can and cannot do. But to apply so called 'rights' randomly and without strict scrutiny, is fallacy. Each item that we want to call a right should be evaluated and examined to be dead sure that it will not infringe on other's basic rights. And I suppose that under this analysis meth would pass muster. Because it's not the meth that infringes on other's rights, it's the after-affects that it leaves on the user.
Anyways, the entire point of my original post, which obviously got lost with my meth comment, was that nobody has the right to government-provided anything. If we want something, then we should have to provide that for ourselves. I've wanted health care for a long time. I really need to go to the dentist. My glasses are 7 years old and are horribly scratched. I have poor circulation in my knees and as a result they hurt like hell. But since the government just decided that now I HAVE to purchase health care.... I'll be damned if I do. Screw them.
Ok, Ok maybe I was a little vague there. What I meant was: Nobody has the right to have health care provided to them at other's expense. Sure, we all have the right to get health care, but that burden should be solely on ourselves. Nobody else should have to pay for my doctor's bills.
As far as drugs go, sure there are harmless drugs. I have no problem with pot. But some of the harder drugs like meth have the nasty side effects of causing mental disorders. This results (I'm not going to post statistics or anything. I think everybody knows enough about meth to understand) in high crime rates among users. Theft, rape, murder. Three big ones that infringe on other's rights to be safe in their possessions, their person, and their life.
I firmly believe in small government and more rights. I hate how much the government tells us what we can and cannot do. But to apply so called 'rights' randomly and without strict scrutiny, is fallacy. Each item that we want to call a right should be evaluated and examined to be dead sure that it will not infringe on other's basic rights. And I suppose that under this analysis meth would pass muster. Because it's not the meth that infringes on other's rights, it's the after-affects that it leaves on the user.
Anyways, the entire point of my original post, which obviously got lost with my meth comment, was that nobody has the right to government-provided anything. If we want something, then we should have to provide that for ourselves. I've wanted health care for a long time. I really need to go to the dentist. My glasses are 7 years old and are horribly scratched. I have poor circulation in my knees and as a result they hurt like hell. But since the government just decided that now I HAVE to purchase health care.... I'll be damned if I do. Screw them.
DopaVash
Founder's Club Member
imported post
I've used this argument to shut liberals up time and time again. Works like a charm.
I've used this argument to shut liberals up time and time again. Works like a charm.
SavageOne
Regular Member
imported post
I was against the Health Care Plan until I heard this argument. If the gov. can require you to buycare health care ins. (even if it's against your wishes) then they should require you to keep and bear a firearm. Also if you are unable to afford said firearm the government will provide you with one.
:lol:
I was against the Health Care Plan until I heard this argument. If the gov. can require you to buycare health care ins. (even if it's against your wishes) then they should require you to keep and bear a firearm. Also if you are unable to afford said firearm the government will provide you with one.
:lol:ABNinfantryman
Regular Member
imported post
Alamo Jack wrote:
Third, the reason why meth passes muster when it comes down to rights which don't violate others' rights is due to the theory that our system of law is based on retribution for violations against an individuals rights and not preventing them. There is nothing to say that the meth user will violate someone's rights, is it likely, yes, is it guaranteed, no, and that's why this "pre-crime" BS we have these days needs to go. If a meth head can do meth all day and leave society alone, I could give two excraments, it's their life.
Alamo Jack wrote:
First, if you have health insurance, you are paying for someone else's healthcare. Why do you think the premiums go up and down? You're paying for sick people now to be paid for later when you're sick. It's not like a saving account with your name on it where your monthly payments accumulate. Second, I do agree with you though that you should not be forced to buy an insurance plan. The whole insurance industry is a scam and should be done away with. I could go my entire life paying for the sick and never once use that insurance. A medical no-to-low-interest loan service makes much more sense.
Third, the reason why meth passes muster when it comes down to rights which don't violate others' rights is due to the theory that our system of law is based on retribution for violations against an individuals rights and not preventing them. There is nothing to say that the meth user will violate someone's rights, is it likely, yes, is it guaranteed, no, and that's why this "pre-crime" BS we have these days needs to go. If a meth head can do meth all day and leave society alone, I could give two excraments, it's their life.
KansasMustang
Regular Member
imported post
Brass Magnet wrote:
There is no instance especially concerning health care when anyone was turned away from revieving emergency care as this is a violation of laws.
Brass Magnet wrote:
My thinking is that your statement of rights coming from the people is flawed. Rights come from our Creator. The Constitution and the people guarentee those rights.
There is no instance especially concerning health care when anyone was turned away from revieving emergency care as this is a violation of laws.
MamaLiberty
Regular Member
imported post
ABNinfantryman wrote:
You might take a look at this rather long, but very valuable essay:
Lysander Spooner - No Treason : http://praxeology.net/LS-NT-6.htm
ABNinfantryman wrote:
Our human rights to life, liberty and property predate the US constitution by as long as human beings have existed. The constitution does not create or even guarantee our rights. Each individual must be personally responsible for the exercise and protection of his/her own rights - and be equally responsible for the consequences of their choices and actions.
You might take a look at this rather long, but very valuable essay:
Lysander Spooner - No Treason : http://praxeology.net/LS-NT-6.htm
JoeSparky
Centurion
imported post
ABNinfantryman wrote:
The Federal Government has no authority under the US Constitution to do what they have done to us under this so call 'Health care reform bill"!
ABNinfantryman wrote:
There are OTHER rights not found in the Constitution as the 9th amendment indicates. THE IMPORTANT PART ON THIS IS, WHILE OTHER RIGHTS EXIST, GOVERNMENT IS RESTRICTED IN ITS ACTIONS BY PREVIOUS PORTIONS THAT OUTLINE GOVERNMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY, AND THOSE AREAS NOT SPECIFICALLY GIVEN TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES OR THE PEOPLE!
The Federal Government has no authority under the US Constitution to do what they have done to us under this so call 'Health care reform bill"!
eye95
Well-known member
imported post
I think some may be misreading the post about the 9th Amendment. I believe his point being made is that the 9th Amendment includes all rights not specifically enumerated. Therefore, all rights are found in the Constitution, either where it is enumerated or in the 9th Amendment where it is implied.
I think some may be misreading the post about the 9th Amendment. I believe his point being made is that the 9th Amendment includes all rights not specifically enumerated. Therefore, all rights are found in the Constitution, either where it is enumerated or in the 9th Amendment where it is implied.
Alexcabbie
Regular Member
imported post
A right for an individual or a State does not have to be enumerated. However, if the Federal government wishes to do a thing, the authorization to do that thing MUST be specifically enumerated.
As to the post about the Constitution having "no right to exist" because it has failed to prevent this travesty of a government; that is rather like saying that a mortgage has no right to exist because it did not prevent a default.
Like the lender who did not vet the defaulting homebuyer, We the People have failed to vet our politicians for commitment to the Constitution, preferring to listen to them speak of the goodies they can get for us.
This is reminiscent of the old tale of the woman who took in a snake and then was astounded when it bit her. She - and we - ought to have known better. Let us hope the antivenin comes in in November.
A right for an individual or a State does not have to be enumerated. However, if the Federal government wishes to do a thing, the authorization to do that thing MUST be specifically enumerated.
As to the post about the Constitution having "no right to exist" because it has failed to prevent this travesty of a government; that is rather like saying that a mortgage has no right to exist because it did not prevent a default.
Like the lender who did not vet the defaulting homebuyer, We the People have failed to vet our politicians for commitment to the Constitution, preferring to listen to them speak of the goodies they can get for us.
This is reminiscent of the old tale of the woman who took in a snake and then was astounded when it bit her. She - and we - ought to have known better. Let us hope the antivenin comes in in November.
ABNinfantryman
Regular Member
imported post
JoeSparky wrote:
JoeSparky wrote:
That depends on who is interpreting the law when it goes to court for it's legality. They passed it by citing the interstate commerce clause in the Constitution, it'll more than likely end up in the Supreme Court's lap to decide whether or not the clause applies in this case. Since I haven't read their case on how it applies through that clause I'm not going to argue one way or the other on it's legality and leave that to the courts.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
ABNinfantryman wrote:
Oh, the interpretational gymnastics to fit an unauthorized act into the constitution are a marvel to behold. Been going on for years. The last people to trust is the government.
In fact, the rest of us had better start deciding whether the fedgov has this or that authority.The government hasn't been doing a trustworthy job of figuring it out. You can start clear back under George Washington, who, despite Thomas Jefferson's clear memo about a central bank being unconstitutional, followed Alexander Hamilton's advice and gave us the first government chartered nationalbank.
Just walk forward from there. The government has been up to one shenanigans after another. All carefully, and creatively justified.
ABNinfantryman wrote:
Oh, the interpretational gymnastics to fit an unauthorized act into the constitution are a marvel to behold. Been going on for years. The last people to trust is the government.
In fact, the rest of us had better start deciding whether the fedgov has this or that authority.The government hasn't been doing a trustworthy job of figuring it out. You can start clear back under George Washington, who, despite Thomas Jefferson's clear memo about a central bank being unconstitutional, followed Alexander Hamilton's advice and gave us the first government chartered nationalbank.
Just walk forward from there. The government has been up to one shenanigans after another. All carefully, and creatively justified.
ABNinfantryman
Regular Member
imported post
Citizen wrote:
Citizen wrote:
Why not go back farther? The entire federal government was created to put down rebellions, force free trade amongst the states, and enforce credit collection against farmers who couldn't afford the inflated interest rates of their creditors (Shay's Rebellion). Ya know, forget it, let's abolish the government, we'll have anarchy and live in small communes and trade amongst eachother and be our own little armies and city states. Oh that almost sounds communist.
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Alamo Jack wrote:
The only rights you have are matters inherent to you as a person that do not require anything else from another person to have or exercise. You have the right to say or write anything you wish (within certain adjudicated limitations such as not inciting violence or panic) but no one has to listen to you. You have the right to keep and bear arms but not to have such arms or training in use of the arms provided to you. Etc.
Alamo Jack wrote:
No you don't. To "GET" health care requires that someone else provides you the benefit of their education, training and expertise. They have no obligation to provide you with anything or enter into a voluntary exchange of value for that education, training and expertise. Such getting is not a burden solely on yourself but also on the person who is providing such care. Now, if that health care provider chooses to professionally provide such services for value you do have under equal protection according to the courts right of access to such services as others for the same cost.
The only rights you have are matters inherent to you as a person that do not require anything else from another person to have or exercise. You have the right to say or write anything you wish (within certain adjudicated limitations such as not inciting violence or panic) but no one has to listen to you. You have the right to keep and bear arms but not to have such arms or training in use of the arms provided to you. Etc.