[nedrgr21]

So a couple of guys I work with have maintained that gun ownership isn't a right and that there are some people who shouldn't have guns. I agree with the second part, but not the first. Their theory is that a "right" cannot be taken away, the "right" to own guns can be taken away, and the "right" to carry has certain restrictions; therefore the "right" to own/carry is a privilege. I just pointed out that at the top of the page it says Bill of Rights :aargh4: and that 1/3 of our gov't is devoted to taking away people's rights. The only response I got was "oh, well, yeah".

Thought I'd share - anyone else run into this "logic"?

Next time it comes up, I think I need to add that the only reason we have restrictions on our right is b/c citizens in the 30's, 60's, and 80's didn't stand up for their rights vehemently enough when it really counted.

 

[Rob P.]

Tell them that they have the "right" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, that doesn't mean that the gov't can't lock them up in jail.

No right is absolute.

 

[RETSUPT99]

Tell them that they will now have to be quiet...they will no longer have a right to speak or express their opinions. If they let the 2A get away, their loss of the 1A will not be far behind.:ziplip:

 

[shooterX]

Tell them that they will now have to be quiet...they will no longer have a right to speak or express their opinions. If they let the 2A get away, their loss of the 1A will not be far behind.:ziplip:

+1 :35:

 

[archer51]

Next time ask them if they've read the "Bill of Privileges". See what they think of that.

 

[SleepingZ]

Very simple, 1st amendment, you can not yell "FIRE" in a crowded area, so their for the 1st must also be a "privilege" because it has restrictions placed on it, also think about 4 letter words, are they protected??

Z

 

[morintp]

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.

It's right there in black and white. Why is this so hard to understand? Was it rewritten while we weren't looking to say "the privilege of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

 

[ccw9mm]

Next time it comes up, I think I need to add that the only reason we have restrictions on our right is b/c citizens in the 30's, 60's, and 80's didn't stand up for their rights vehemently enough when it really counted.

Don't forget the simple fact that liars, cheaters and thieves have existed in public service since the dawn of public service. It ain't called "the gravy train" for nothin'. I'm of the opinion that this is the primary cause of such criminalization of everything. "1984" in real life. And, yes, it needs to be vehemently resisted at all times, for the dangerous cancer that it is.

 

[Paco]

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.

It's right there in black and white. Why is this so hard to understand? Was it rewritten while we weren't looking to say "the privilege of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

There you go, pointing out the obvious and using facts. The OP's buddies don't believe in using facts, only emotions.

 

[MIKEV]

Very simple, 1st amendment, you can not yell "FIRE" in a crowded area, so their for the 1st must also be a "privilege" because it has restrictions placed on it, also think about 4 letter words, are they protected??

Z

Actually there is nothing stopping you from yelling FIRE in a crowded theater baring you are physically abel to vocalize the word, except yourself.
Your responsibilty for your actions, your moral compass and your values restrict you from yelling fire in a crwoded theater, no law that the government passed will do that.

MikeV

 

[edr9x23super]

Ask your buddies what they would do if you popped them in the kisser and started beating them severely? would they fight back? If they would, then they are supporters of the 2nd amendment; in its most basic form, the 2nd amendment is about self-defense, from all enemies foreign and domestic not whether or not you can own a gun....

 

[SleepingZ]

Actually there is nothing stopping you from yelling FIRE in a crowded theater baring you are physically abel to vocalize the word, except yourself.
Your responsibilty for your actions, your moral compass and your values restrict you from yelling fire in a crowded theater, no law that the government passed will do that.

MikeV

Can I stand on a street corner and yell every vulgar word I can think of and get by with that???

"Fire" in a theater, I'm betting you would or could be charged with disturbing the peace, or inciting a riot???

Z

 

[Miggy]

Gents, let's get the fire thing straight. You cannot falsely yell fire in a theater as in trying to create a disturbance. Yes you can yell fire if there is a fire because you are issuing a warning.

 

[itschuck]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That single statement should preclude any objection to any part of the bill of rights

 

[MIKEV]

Gents, let's get the fire thing straight. You cannot falsely yell fire in a theater as in trying to create a disturbance. Yes you can yell fire if there is a fire because you are issuing a warning.

I am sorry if my message was misunderstood, What I meant to/should have said was there is nothing that pre-emptively prohibits it. You have the tools to do it at all times. You are legally responsible for your actions after the fact though. The same cannot be said of the tools enabling one to exercise the 2A in all parts of the Country.

Sorry
MikeV

 

[Flext]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That single statement should preclude any objection to any part of the bill of rights

Isn't it wonderful that the 2A can help protect all of those. :smile:

 

[MIKEV]

Can I stand on a street corner and yell every vulgar word I can think of and get by with that???

"Fire" in a theater, I'm betting you would or could be charged with disturbing the peace, or inciting a riot???

Z

Nothing pre-emptively stops you from doing it. The disturbing the peace charge is filed after you have irresposibly excercised your 1A rights. Can gun restrictions be classified similiarly, in most cases, no.

MikeV

 

[MIKEV]

Quote:
Originally Posted by itschuck
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That single statement should preclude any objection to any part of the bill of rights

Originally posted by Flext
Isn't it wonderful that the 2A can help protect all of those.
____________________________

I agree with the above, however because the above quote comes from The Declaration of Independence, wich pre-dates the US Constitution, It can be argued that it is not a document of law and is thus irrelevant to the BoR.

MikeV

 

[itschuck]

Quote:
Originally Posted by itschuck
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That single statement should preclude any objection to any part of the bill of rights

Originally posted by Flext
Isn't it wonderful that the 2A can help protect all of those.
____________________________

I agree with the above, however because the above quote comes from The Declaration of Independence, wich pre-dates the US Constitution, It can be argued that it is not a document of law and is thus irrelevant to the BoR.

MikeV

It can be argued from the some of the writings of the founding fathers. That is one of the driving forces for the bill of rights.

Aware of the lack of these provisions, George Washington urged Congress in his first inaugural address to propose amendments that offered "a reverence for the characteristic rights of freemen and a regard for public harmony." Sounds a bit like unalienable rights as mentioned in the declaration.

Again in the anti-federalist papers we see reference to the decleration.
From Antifederalist #84 written by "Brutus" (Believed to be Robert Yates) we see the influence of the decleration.
"If we may collect the sentiments of the people of America, from their own most solemn declarations, they hold this truth as self-evident, that all men are by nature free."

The fifth amendent mentions nor be deprived of life, liberty or property..Unalienable rights again?

So though it is not a "legal" document or "law" the declaration hugely influenced as to why we have a bill of rights.

 

[MIKEV]

No argument from me.