"Constitutional" Rights?

[45King]

All too often, I hear people speaking in terms of "Constitutional rights", and I think one needs to step back and take a look at the big picture. The rights -enumerated- in the Constitution are -basic human rights-, and the Constitution itself nothing more than a document which promises that our gov't will bear these rights in mind when making laws.(HAH!)
The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness belong to every person on the planet, not just those who live in the US. The right of self-defense is a corrollary to the right to life. One cannot exist as a right without the other. This is the tack that needs to be taken in arguments against the "bannits"- do you support the right to life (defined as: my life is mine to do with as I please, as long as my actions don't infringe on the rights of others, deprive others of their property, or cause harm to others)? If one does believe this, how can one not believe in the right to self-defense? Without that right, the right to life is meaningless.
There's so much bad law and bad precedents out there, trying to argue the case from a stricly legal point of view can be counter-productive. Time to take a page from the bannits' book and hit them with the emotional yet logical argument-my life is mine, and it's my right to decide whom I want protecting it, and how it should be accomplished. The gov't should have no say-so in this decision; it is as personal as one's choice of religion.


------------------
Shoot straight regards, Richard

 

[Ray VanderLinden]

45king,

I totally agree. But you must remember that goverments all through history have attempted to Choose what Religion and what speech was acceptable.

Even in the U.S. we have often decieded that heathen Indians, couldn't practice the beliefs they were born to. The Killing of a Mormon was not to be considered a crime in the mid 1800's in Misourri, by Governors proclamation. This was not recended until 1974.

Goverments down through history have also desided who has the right to live, they call that Genocide. Notice the Jews, the Kurds, the intellectuals in Cambodia, the Muslims in Serbia, need I go on.

The rights the Father gave all men scare the devil out of those that wish to rule. They will do nearly anything to defeat them. They only believe in Power not God, so when you say GOD you are painted as a Rightwing Christian Fundamentalist Wacko. Sometimes even on this forum.

We have to keep beating them over the head with the Constitution as that is the only thing they can't really paint as bad, even when they try.

Keep your powder dry.



[This message has been edited by Raymond VanDerLinden (edited March 23, 1999).]

 

[Keith Rogan]

Ricardo,

A logical extension of gun grabbers reasoning would be to have deers antlers removed or bears teeth and claws pulled.

We have the right to defend ourselves not just as a basic human right (which it certainly is), but as a life form for the means to continue existence!

Any other reasoning is madness.

------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan

 

[bookkie]

When debating anti-gunner's I have often used the tack and asked them why they consider their life worthless? When they come back with that their life is not worthless, I then ask them then why do you not think it is worth defending? It is hard for them to anwser that question.

Or I'll make the statement that they are cowards. Ask them why they consider their life more valuable than the police officer's who they expect to risk their life to protect theirs.

These types of questions raise emotion and turn the debate back on them. Forcing them to think about the meaning of the first law of nature.

Richard

 

[45King]

Raymond>goverments all through history have attempted to Choose what Religion and what speech was acceptable(snip) Goverments down through history have also desided who has the right to live

It should be pointed out that such gov'ts are not of, by and for the people, but rather are totalitarian police states. Ask if that's the kind of "freedom" they want.

Raymond>We have to keep beating them over the head with the Constitution as that is the only thing they can't really paint as bad, even when they try.

The problem with that is they can point to loads of bad case law, which confuses the issue & gets people to splitting hairs over the meanings of words, phrases, etc. Besides, the typical bannit sees the Constitution as an old, outdated document written by white male slave owners. I seriously doubt any of them have recently read the Constitution. If Bill Clinton ever told the truth, it was on the occasion (March 2,1993, press conference reported in the 3/3/93 edition of the Boston Globe) when he said something to the effect that the Constitution was a radical document. It is indeed. It goes way beyond "liberal" to downright radical. It is the most progressive document of government ever written, for it recognizes that the rights of individuals are paramount, and all the powers of governemnt flow from the individual. However, trying to use this argument against the bannits is wasted effort. Keep them on the defensive. Ask how they would choose to protect themselves. Ask them what gives any individual the right to have say-so in the life of any other individual.

bookie>These types of questions raise emotion and turn the debate back on them.

Exactly what we have to do. I've heard the "I don't want to contribute to the violence in society" argument more than once as a reason for not using self-defense. All it takes to shoot this one down is to point out that when a goblin attacks a victim, the victim is already (not by his own choice) contributing to the violence. At this point, his only choice is to contribute in a positive way (fight back, successfully) or a negative way (give in, perpetuate more crime.) Pacifists try to take the high moral ground by claiming that all violence is immoral. I say to them that they are the amoral ones, incapable of distinguishing good from bad. If one has to shoot someone in self-defense, that is not passing a judgement on the "worth" of that person, but is rather an immediate judgement on the actions that person was involved in at the time. No one has the right to threaten harm to another, and when one does so, one automatically forfeits one's own right to life.

------------------
Shoot straight regards, Richard