DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Bill of Rights

So your view is that we shouldnt have laws against conspiracy to commit murder ?

Regardless of your assertion that your view is correct, it is considered incorrect by hundreds of years of US Legal Precedent.

This view you are proposing is incredibly simplistic and naive. Additionally, the purpose of the US govt is outlined in the preamble of the Constitution



There's alot more there just protecting rights. In fact, I'd argue that protecting rights isn't the primary charter. Allowing citizens the right to wish harm on another goes very much against the justice desired by the preamble, for instance.

You will also need to provide specifics on how the US laws protect mob bosses , I think you're talking out of your behind here and are running out of ideas to defend your simplistic view of governance .

First, just wanna say I'm enjoying this conversation between you guys.

I would agree with you that Voleur is taking a simplistic view/approach. I actually think that is the correct position to start from when we talk about Rights and coming to the best resolution when those Rights come in to conflict.

Where I do disagree with him (or at least his mob boss example) is that I don't think it's so cut and dry to say a persons Right has been violated after an incident has occurred. I don't think it's enough to say that someone has the Right to defend themselves if something were to occur, all the while living in fear of the threat being carried out by someone who has the means to do it. The key here being the means to do it . It's one thing to cut someone off in traffic and they yell "I'm going to kill you!" as they drive away and another for someone who you have a personal knowledge and association with to make the same threat while holding a knife in their hand.

And yes, we have the inherent Right to defend ourselves, but even with firearms giving us the ability to level the playing field, let's face it, not everyone is capable of defending themselves and defending themselves successfully no matter what you give them.

There's a standard within the Law that gives imminence of a crime the same or similar weight to the actual commitment of the crime.

I do disagree with you on your point however about protecting Rights not being the primary charter of the Constitution. To me at least, it is very clear that the foundation of the Constitution is that very premise. Barack Obama pre-POTUS said on a radio interview that the Constitution had what he considered a "blind spot". He said that the Consitution was a list of negative Rights, or things that the gov't can't do to you. What he said was missing was a list of what the gov't is supposed to do for you.

The entire premise according to the Founding Fathers was to limit the involvement and necessity of gov't intervention and influence. One of the most often criticisms about the Constitution, or rather the Founding Fathers is that they couldn't have imagined what the future was going to hold but let's look at that.

At that time, these guys were pushing for a limited gov't role in our lives. That's pretty remarkable within the context of a nation where many people were trying to scratch out a life in the wilderness of the frontier. And even if they weren't homesteading, the majority of people coming (or fleeing) here were literally trying to make something with nothing. Given all they were lacking, it's really amazing that they still weren't in favor of a gov't providing for them.

I tend to agree that what you are arguing in favor of is pretty close to anarchy.. it's a very "survivor of the fittest" mentality that no matter what somebody says or does, they haven't broken a law right up until the second they pull the trigger... at which point, it becomes your responsibility to defend yourself.

I can wish harm on somebody... I can sit here and think, "Wow, I wish person X would fall off a bridge" and I'm within my rights to do that. The second I begin making plans to push him off the bridge, then I'm outside the law... and in my opinion, that is as it should be.

I do not advocate any "survival of the fittest" mentality. I advocate freedom and liberty. If I restrict the access to guns by legislation, I would contend that you are advocating citizens be undefended against those who would not respect the rights of their fellow citizens. In fact, I would also make the assertion that to advocate for such action makes the you a conspirator to violate a citizen's rights.

Explain to me how you can protect someone from committing harm onto a fellow citizen through laws? You cannot do it. It is virtually impossible. We have proof of this fact with the school shooting in Florida and the recent shooting in Texas. In both instances, the criminal was known to law enforcement previously. It is not the place of the government to define rights of their citizens. It is the place of government to enforce laws to protect the rights of the citizenry. A law to allow say armed adults in the school in Florida may have been able to stop the bloodshed. In fact, I could ask anyone who advocates for gun free zones such as schools, what justification do you support this law? To keep an armed gunmen from entering the school and shooting innocent people? REALLY? How has that worked?

I could be offended by your referring to my point of view of the role of government as simplistic. I won't though because I know you do not mean to belittle me. Your mention of the rights of the citizenry to not be the primary reasoning for the Constitution baffles me. Without my individual rights, I have nothing. You mentioned Justice as the reasoning for the Constitution. I proclaim that Justice is born of reason and respect for the individual rights of each citizen. You cannot have Justice if in fact you do not respect the individual rights of a citizen. Justice is not just fairness. As for your declaration that I am naive in my thinking, I would like think of myself more a pollyanna. I am optimistic that my fellow citizens will not violate my rights. I believe that when it comes to the majority of citizens in the USA, they have no desire or care what I say or do as long as I do not harm them or their loved ones. I pray I am not wrong on this account when I think of what you might think.

i like how the same people whining about the bill of rights have zero issue with gunning down and arresting black people based on profiling.

the same guys crying about the bill of rights is the same dude supporting the sheriff in arizona who was found guilty of violating the very thing yall are whining about.

the waffle house thread is further evidence that you guys only care about the bill of rights when it comes to white people. everybody else can go back and be slaves for all yall care.

Thanks for contributing DevilDawg! Stating that rights aren't the "primary" charter was an overreach on my part. Securing the blessings of liberty as noted by the preamble speak to that. My primary concern would be anyone oversimplifying the role of the US Government to be including only that provision and no other.

I also agree wholeheartedly that we were fortunate to have the founding fathers we did. They were a product of their times (as we all are) yet still managed to do some pretty incredible things where founding the US was concerned.

I am often extremely blunt in my words. I'm fortunate in this instance that you knew that I was referring to your ideas and not you personally. And I don't intend to mean simplistic as "foolish." I mean it in the literal term: I think you take a very orthogonal view of rights and liberties of individuals, and consider almost any restriction of those rights to be wrong or suspect.

I agree with your assessment that most citizens have a laissez fairre attitude to others. Unfortunately we have citizens who do not. For my sake, and the sake of my loved ones, I agree with the necessity of restrictions in an effort to improve public safety. Do laws stop all criminals? No. But well crafted laws can do a good job of stopping enough potential crimes to be considered justified restriction. This is why DUI laws have shown effectiveness in reducing drunk driving events. I would prefer that my rights to drink an drive be restricted, actually. The same for yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. The bottom line for me is I do not consider my losing those freedoms to be a loss for me, but rather a gain for those I would be otherwise harming through exercising these freedoms.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

your BFF's 40 and Diam actively support the sheriff in arizona, who was found guilty of profiling, racial discrimination, and violating people's 4th amendment rights.

they are all up in this thread. some others as well.

reading through this thread is just watching a bunch of hypocrites act like they actually care about the constitution. yet when it comes to non-whites, they have demonstrated that the constitution doesn't really matter in that aspect.

im sick of all this bill of rights talk when cops actively violate the 4th amendment due to civil forfeiture laws, or profiling blacks and latinos.

something missing all up in this thread. thats why i made my comment in my first post on the first page.

i already knew where this nonsense was going. and it didn't disappoint.

I appreciate your bluntness. I will as well be blunt. I cannot fathom how any reasonable person can use the terms well crafted and law together. Laws are often left ambiguous on purpose so as to be inclusive. I do not even understand your DUI analogy. I do not see a right to drink nor a right to drive in the Constitution. I do not see a national DUI law. They are generally state laws because as is the case under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. As the Founding Father Ben Franklin once said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." I cannot give up my rights even if I wanted to. I have them regardless of my desire to exercise them. You have a right to bear arms yet you may never chose to own a firearm. Your desire to never own a firearm does not or should not restrict my ability to do so if I chose. You do not have a right nor the authority to take my rights from me, either by your own hands, through an elected official, or a judicial ruling. All members of government take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Any government official who takes that oath and then advocates to restrict the Constitutional rights of the citizenry violates that oath. Again I ask anyone to give me a single law that restricts Constitutional rights that has stopped a single crime from happening?

Can you provide evidence to your claim that laws are ambigious on purpose? If anything, we have caselaw that dictates the exact opposite should be presumed in any law we have. It's called the vagueness doctrine, and when applied in criminal law it is called 'void-for-vagueness':



source

Vague laws can and have been challenged under violation of the Constitution at the federal level. I won't argue for its perfection, but I will need to ask for more evidence than the ironically vague claim of "laws are often left ambigious."

As for Ben Franklin's often used quote, it's an example of quote mining. He wasn't talking about liberty but about money: source

Written in 1755, Ben Franklin spoke out against the idea of taxing land in order to build a security force for frontiersmen. If that is our measure of losing essential liberty, then every single person in this country is freedomless, as virtually all property owners pay a few mills for a police force.



Ok I think we've gone into many directions here, so I'll do my best here. First off I own firearms, including a dreaded AR-15. That shouldn't impact our conversation but based on your words here, I feel it relevant to note.

As for taking away rights, the supreme court has ruled so many times that rights are not unlimited. It's been ruled so many times that I can throw a dart on a dart board and find a case explaining it. Let's look at the Supreme Court decision of DC vs. Heller (2008) for one such case. On the one hand, the Supreme Court ruled that 2A protects individual rights to own a firearm, unconnected with militia use. That obviously is a big win for 2A rights. However, there were other mentions made within point 2:



Antonin Scalia, one of the most vocal arguments of Constitutional Originalism as well as general Constitutionalism, had this to say in his opinion piece on the case:



So, we have some of the most highly regarded legal minds that our country (and perhaps the whole world) has ever seen, including ardent Constitutional Originalists, conclude that rights are not unlimited. I think they provide compelling evidence to their reasoning. I have not found evidence to the contrary to change my view. I am not entirely close minded, but I think the deck is stacked heavily against you.

It's interesting you bring up the point about Rights not being unlimited because that was the very point the Founding Fathers argued about when deciding on whether or not to include the Bill of Rights.

One side argued for them believing it necessary to provide a framework by which the gov't was restricted in interacting with the citizenry.

The other side believed that by enumerating those Rights, and building it in to that framework, it would eventually give liense for the gov't to further define what Rights we had. IIRC, the compromise was the 9th Amendment.

Wikipedia has some good info on the arguments and evolution of it here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Indeed, I am fascinated by the history of our countries founding, and the process which led to our constitution being ratified in the first place

I'm of the opinion that because we have a common law system, where case law is used to bolster our interpretation of the law, that it is better to be exhaustive in enumerating the intent of the law in the beginning. Civil law such as in Europe does not rely on case law at all, so it could be more acceptable to have a system where the law is simplified.

If we did not have a bill of rights, it wouldn't be hard to conceive a situation where we could have banned civilian possession of firearms for instance, and the case law would have set that precedent, making it extremely difficult to undo.

where's the post at?

where are the responses?

here's another trash ass system:





where's yall outrage over this? this isnt new. this aint new things popping up. this been going on for years.




where's all these conservatives whining about the constitution at?

man im going hard in the paint until every last one of yall conservatives, especially trump supporters, bring yall asses here and address this crap.

NONE OF THIS IS NEW. ALL of it has been going on for YEARS.

voleur, peen, diam, DC, arch, day, dawg duty, riley, willit, eve.

and especially Devil's ass. where yall at?

sick of this crap straight up. yall out here whining about the bill of rights and the constitution, the SAME constitution that declared that all men were created equal while it had people who looked like me in CHAINS.

CHAINS.

then after the war, the conservative constitutional white guys decided to TERRORIZE black people with the creation of the KKK.

the same conservative constitutional white guys then decided to create jim crow, completely segregating us and deciding to take away basic rights that are "suppose" to be god given.

YOU MEAN GOD GIVEN TO WHITE PEOPLE. we were still viewed as nothing more than FARM ANIMALS. a TOOL. servants!!

the conservative white guys turned a BLIND EYE to us getting LYNCHED, not getting jobs despite fighting for the country in both WW1 AND WW2.

the same conservative constitutional white guys then turned a BLIND EYE to the FACT that the government experimented on black people with the syphilis virus.

i could go on and on and on.

got yall up here talking about the constitution like you actually give a damn about it.

YOU DONT. you only care about the constitution as it applies to other white people. to non whites? we can all kick rocks for all yall care.

i see you conservatives all up in these threads trying to sell crap. talking about "i only see character, not color", "oh, i judge based on the individual" "were all americans" and all this other BS.

yet the MOMENT some crap goes downs, all of a sudden we aint all equal americans.

oh, dont look at me, thats black people!

oh, dont look at me, thats latino's!

oh, dont look at me, thats the arabs!

yea, we're all americans, right until some crap goes down, then yall the FIRST ones to make sure to distance yourselves from non white americans.

nothing but a bunch of damn hypocrites on this board. yall talk about the bill of rights, but then turn around in all these threads and make every freaking excuse in the world, defending this obvious racist situations.

You may want to relook at that, it was the democratic party that created the KKK, fought for slavery, and opposed equal rights tooth and nail.

Why let facts get in his way at this point he never needed them before.

Party is not the same as ideology. I dunno how many times you’ve had to be told that.

Keep proving my point. This crap is pathetic.

so what was Robert Byrd's Ideology? The Grand Master and mentor to the most recent face of the Dem party?

Neither party today is anything like what it was then. I would hope that is obvious. Lincoln was a Republican. But in today's world, I think he would've ran as a Democrat. Maybe I'm bias.

Hilary's mentor was a leader in the KKK. She is todays party, as she was the most recent face of it.

Am I saying the right does not have racist - absolutely not. But to think that the left does not either is asinine and uneducated. The left has made a living keeping minorities down and in poverty - its their goal. Lyndon Johnson said it himself, he would have minorities voting democrat for years. Although I don't believe he used the term minorities.

I doubt it...he wouldn't want to known as 'dishonest Abe'.

I find it ironic that some are called racist simply because of their political views, yet when democrats insist that blacks need guaranteed income monthly simply because they are black, that is not racist at all.....

sorry, its rather offensive.

Well he did say he would've kept slavery instead of fighting the civil war. So if he isn't a Democrat, he does hedge like one.

Who said that? Really. Who said that?

If you're talking about welfare, please stop. Welfare is to help low-income families feed themselves. Race isn't a prerequisite to receive welfare.

I'll use a personal experience.

My wife became pregnant with her first child 11 years ago while living in a friend's apartment and not working. She had been told by doctors she was infertile (For those of you judging the hell out of her right now). So anyway, she was working for minimum wage, barely getting by, and by a miracle she was pregnant. And she wasn't giving that baby up because she wanted to be a mother, and a good one. So she applied for welfare, and she got it. She used the money she received from welfare to pay for food for herself and her daughter, while she completed an LPN program, at the top of her class, and got a job working for a nursing home. She then got off of welfare, and was able to support herself and her daughter.

She has since become an RN, and we actually have two children together on top of my step-daughter, who I love dearly.

So welfare did exactly what it's meant to do. It helped my wife out when she was down and out. Got her back on her feet.

What is wrong with people who think that's a bad thing?


(Sidenote: Clearly she is not infertile LOL. Doctors aren't always right.)

im am not talking about welfare - I am talking about the dems on record the last week saying reparations and a guaranteed income are things we need to be doing. man, you surely like to assume a lot.

No sense in wasting time typing about this. Might as well just post a link.

Southern Strategy

R's own this.
They worked hard for it back in the 60's.
Now, bigots are an integral part of the family.
I give credit where credit is due.

You're right, I assumed. But I also asked if you were talking about Welfare. So I at least asked the question.

And be honest, you hate Welfare anyway.

Guaranteed income is more aptly known as universal income because it's universal and not based on race. It's not to be confused with reparations which is a concept created by a Republican President.

I don't know of too many people on either side of the aisle who would call that type of use of welfare or public assistance a bad thing.. maybe some would, there are nuts on all sides... but I doubt there are many.

That is EXACTLY what public assistance is supposed to do, help good people out of bad situations while they get back on their feet..

Now, if the story went that it's now 11 years later and she's still on welfare and has 4 more kids.. that's where a lot of people have a problem.

I can't speak for anybody else, but I have ZERO problem paying taxes into a program if it's being used the way your wife used it.

1) The idea that reparations and UBI is a widely prominent part of a national Democratic platform is absolutely laughable

2) When you spend months on this board hemming and hawing and falling all over to yourself to explain why a virulently racist graphic made by a white supremacy outfit isn't actually racist, the whole "aw, jeez, they're just calling me racist because I'm a Republican!" schtick tends to fall flat



I think people call you racist because you spend most of your time on the political forum saying things like "Trump isn't racist" or "this story isn't gaining traction because the victim is white!"

Finland, the only country I'm aware of that has tried this, is abandoning the program as soon as it runs it's original 2 year course. Haven't really given a reason yet.


It's actually a concept that goes back hundreds of years before Ronald Reagan.. he most certainly didn't create it.

And a Republican (Reagan) proposed and paid reparations for the serious wrongs of a Democrat (Roosevelt) from 40 years prior for racial injustice against many many Japanese-American citizens.. yet so many democrats still love Roosevelt and hate Reagan.. odd.

Ditto.

where have I ever said I was against welfare - there is this little search engine tool on the board, please feel free to post you link. otherwise, you lie once again.

UBI was a concept long before Reagan, but he's correct in that it's traditionally a libertarian or right-wing concept.

I see it ended today with no official data out. It was also a trial run and only included people who were unemployed. Universal income also goes to employees and employers. I know Sam Altman's Y Combinator Seed wants to do a random trial that includes employed people. I am interested to see the results of this however.


Actually, I was talking about Lincoln's original plan.

If I had meant for my remark about you hating welfare to be taken seriously, I wouldn't have put the wink face after it. Was trying to have a little fun. My bad.

I love Roosevelt, both Franklin and Teddy actually. But I also don't forget about the atrocities against Japanese-Americans. There's no excuse or apology for that. Simply inexcusable.

But I do support many of the programs FDR put into place during his Presidency. A lot of good things came from having a Socialist President.

I'd have a problem with my wife too if she had 4 kids and was still on welfare. I'd have been wearing protection LONG ago