PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court Nominee does not know the basis of our rights.



Constitutionally Speaking
07-01-2010, 11:03 PM
Was anyone else disturbed that Kagan was astoundingly ignorant of the concept of Natural (inalienable)l Rights???


How can ANYONE think she is qualified for the Supreme Court???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-U9QN6XV16k&feature=related



This a a scary nomination.

Wei Wu Wei
07-01-2010, 11:26 PM
How can having a gun be a natural right? Guns aren't natural. It's obviously a constitutional right but how can someone claim that bearing arms is a natural right when the only natural arms are the ones attached to your torso?

Wei Wu Wei
07-01-2010, 11:27 PM
Also, she's right, her job is not to rule based on her opinions of rights outside of the constitution, but rather on what the constitution says about our rights.

Wei Wu Wei
07-01-2010, 11:28 PM
That's like claiming the right to vote is a "natural right", when the democratic-based system of government is man-made.

malloc
07-01-2010, 11:34 PM
How can having a gun be a natural right? Guns aren't natural. It's obviously a constitutional right but how can someone claim that bearing arms is a natural right when the only natural arms are the ones attached to your torso?

This has got to be the dumbest thing I've read in quite some time. The gun isn't the natural right, self defense is the natural right, and in order for one to defend himself he must be allowed to acquire the same arms as are available to those who would harm, kill, or enslave him.

Also, why did you make 3 different posts? If you come up with something to add to your previous post, use the edit button. That's kind of annoying.


That's like claiming the right to vote is a "natural right", when the democratic-based system of government is man-made.

The right to vote is referring the natural rights of choice and self governance. It appears that statist lefties really don't know a thing about liberty. I don't think the modern left even deserves the word liberal anymore since they obviously are clueless about liberty.

This lack of reasoning and understanding is exactly why Kagan shouldn't be a justice. The rights outlined in the Bill of Rights is an expression of natural rights, the founder's are unanimous in their separate writings on this one. If Kagan cannot read the Bill of Rights within the context of natural rights, she'll be incapable of making correct decisions about the enumeration in the Bill of Rights.

Wei Wu Wei
07-01-2010, 11:49 PM
This has got to be the dumbest thing I've read in quite some time. The gun isn't the natural right, self defense is the natural right, and in order for one to defend himself he must be allowed to acquire the same arms as those available to those who would harm, kill, or enslave him.

So why are guns always the topic? Why can't a person learn martial arts? Why can't a person learn any self-defense technique? Why are guns always the topic of self-defense? I hope we haven't become such a nation of pansies that we need to be able to kill a man 25 feet away from us to avoid a scary close encounter.

If the natural right is self-defense, then all that implies is self-defense is ALWAYS a valid defense in a court of law, when applicable. The right to bear arms is more than simply self-defense, it's specifically about ownership of firearms. You don't need guns to protect yourself, humans defended themselves for hundreds of thousands of years before guns were invented. So yes, it's a constitutional right, but the idea that owning a GUN is a 'natural right' is laughable.




The right to vote is referring the natural rights of choice and self governance. It appears that statist lefties really don't know a thing about liberty. I don't think the modern left even deserves the word liberal anymore since they obviously are clueless about liberty.

Society itself is unnatural, the right to participate in governing the society is a derivative of a man-made, symbolic institution. That doesn't make it any "less important", it is in our constitution after all, but you're really fudging the lines when you just clump everything under the umbrella of "natural rights".




This lack of reasoning and understanding is exactly why Kagan shouldn't be a justice. The rights outlined in the Bill of Rights is an expression of natural rights,

No they are not. They are an expression of protections for the sake of a free society. Natural rights are listed in the Declaration of Independence, and even that is arguable, since that document is hardly scripture, nor is it written in the form of an argument, but (as it's named) a declaration.


the founder's are unanimous in their separate writings on this one. If Kagan cannot read the Bill of Rights within the context of natural rights, she'll be incapable of making correct decisions about the enumeration in the Bill of Rights.

Please explain to me what a natural right is.

malloc
07-02-2010, 12:12 AM
So why are guns always the topic? Why can't a person learn martial arts? Why can't a person learn any self-defense technique? Why are guns always the topic of self-defense? I hope we haven't become such a nation of pansies that we need to be able to kill a man 25 feet away from us to avoid a scary close encounter.


I can't believe you are actually serious about this argument. It's been thoroughly rebuked since the first beatnik retard hippie made it. There's nothing new here. Guns are always the topic, because guns are what are constantly being attacked. Tell me idiot, how are you going to defend yourself with martial arts when you are facing a mugger with a gun? Do you think you are Jet friggin' Li or something? How are you going to overthrow an oppressive government with your martial arts?



If the natural right is self-defense, then all that implies is self-defense is ALWAYS a valid defense in a court of law, when applicable.


http://members.outpost10f.com/~lindax/spongebob/spongebob-characters/char_patrick.jpg
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to look more like?


What the heck is this doublespeak supposed to mean? Of course self defense is a valid defense when it's applicable!



The right to bear arms is more than simply self-defense, it's specifically about ownership of firearms. You don't need guns to protect yourself, humans defended themselves for hundreds of thousands of years before guns were invented. So yes, it's a constitutional right, but the idea that owning a GUN is a 'natural right' is laughable.

What's laughable is your basic understanding of physics. What happened after guns were invented? Oh, yeah, those who didn't have them couldn't defend themselves from those who did have them. Therefore, since guns were invented and they do exist, then humans do need them to defend themselves because you can't un-invent something. This argument is just as moronic as your previous one.








Society itself is unnatural, the right to participate in governing the society is a derivative of a man-made, symbolic institution.

Now you are in deep moonbat territory. Are you high or something?



http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_0GIib6P35A4/S4BjE8BUHMI/AAAAAAAAALw/F47bLGzgUxI/s320/Leo_Tommy+Chong.jpg
Because man, you can't not be right man?


Perhaps you should read the ancient history of man. We were forming societies back when the only other thing we could form were rocks chips. Humans are social creatures, human society gets more complex, but it's never been unnatural.



That doesn't make it any "less important", it is in our constitution after all, but you're really fudging the lines when you just clump everything under the umbrella of "natural rights".

Maybe you shouldn't be so lazy and actually read the words written by the men who wrote the Constitution. There's a stack of Federalist Papers which describe the exact thought processes which led to the inclusion of statements which affirm, but do not create, natural rights within the Constitution. Let's hear your theory on how the content for the Bill of Rights was chosen, and what the logical basis behind it was.





No they are not. They are an expression of protections for the sake of a free society. Natural rights are listed in the Declaration of Independence, and even that is arguable, since that document is hardly scripture, nor is it written in the form of an argument, but (as it's named) a declaration.



Please explain to me what a natural right is.

I've already linked this to you at least 3 times. Seems you are more interested in trolling than learning anything useful.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5085838350268647159#

NJCardFan
07-02-2010, 12:58 AM
Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei
So why are guns always the topic? Why can't a person learn martial arts? Why can't a person learn any self-defense technique? Why are guns always the topic of self-defense? I hope we haven't become such a nation of pansies that we need to be able to kill a man 25 feet away from us to avoid a scary close encounter.

My, my, my what a clueless idiot you really are. For starters, I don't care if you're Bruce Lee, Chuck Norris, Jackie Chan, Steven Segal, and Jean Claude Van Dam all rolled into one, I've yet to see a martial art that can stop a bullet. 2nd, did you know that 90% of all firefights are between people less than 4 feet apart? I have never heard of someone being shot at 25 feet in self defense. I'm trained in self defense for my job and I wear a vest and it's still not enough against a firearm. Tell you what though. You go take any martial art you want then bring all of that to a gun fight and let me know how you make out.

Zafod
07-02-2010, 01:57 PM
I just want to know why wee wee the pee pee boy think he even knows what the fuck he is talking about?

I doubt this douche even know any martial arts.


asshat

Rebel Yell
07-02-2010, 02:26 PM
So why are guns always the topic? Why can't a person learn martial arts? Why can't a person learn any self-defense technique? Why are guns always the topic of self-defense? I hope we haven't become such a nation of pansies that we need to be able to kill a man 25 feet away from us to avoid a scary close encounter.

Is this you? (highlight 5 minute mark)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxF2ouw8NJ0&feature=fvst

Rebel Yell
07-02-2010, 02:33 PM
You don't need guns to protect yourself, humans defended themselves for hundreds of thousands of years before guns were invented. So yes, it's a constitutional right, but the idea that owning a GUN is a 'natural right' is laughable.

So, wise one, tell us how people defended themselves from someone with a gun before guns were invented.

Wei Wu Wei
07-02-2010, 04:59 PM
I can't believe you are actually serious about this argument. It's been thoroughly rebuked since the first beatnik retard hippie made it. There's nothing new here. Guns are always the topic, because guns are what are constantly being attacked. Tell me idiot, how are you going to defend yourself with martial arts when you are facing a mugger with a gun? Do you think you are Jet friggin' Li or something? How are you going to overthrow an oppressive government with your martial arts?

With a gun. That's why it's a constitutional right.

That's not the same as a natural right though.







http://members.outpost10f.com/~lindax/spongebob/spongebob-characters/char_patrick.jpg
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to look more like?


What the heck is this doublespeak supposed to mean? Of course self defense is a valid defense when it's applicable!

Yes of course, it seems obvious, in part because it's a Natural Right.




What's laughable is your basic understanding of physics. What happened after guns were invented? Oh, yeah, those who didn't have them couldn't defend themselves from those who did have them. Therefore, since guns were invented and they do exist, then humans do need them to defend themselves because you can't un-invent something. This argument is just as moronic as your previous one.

So what about grenades? What about landmines? What about small rockets? What about chemical bombs? Should everything be allowed because technology allows a perpetual arms race? Clearly not, some things are okay, some are not, but we decide that based on our interpretation of laws and in this case on our constitution, there's nothing natural about what technologies we have a right to. If people decide their society needs to be one where people can own guns, then so be it, that's a constitutional right, but not a "natural" one.




Now you are in deep moonbat territory. Are you high or something?



http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_0GIib6P35A4/S4BjE8BUHMI/AAAAAAAAALw/F47bLGzgUxI/s320/Leo_Tommy+Chong.jpg
Because man, you can't not be right man?


Perhaps you should read the ancient history of man. We were forming societies back when the only other thing we could form were rocks chips. Humans are social creatures, human society gets more complex, but it's never been unnatural.


Fair enough. In a sense everything humans do is natural because we are part of nature. What I should have said is that society is only a symbolic institution, like our system of laws and like our rights within that society.



Maybe you shouldn't be so lazy and actually read the words written by the men who wrote the Constitution. There's a stack of Federalist Papers which describe the exact thought processes which led to the inclusion of statements which affirm, but do not create, natural rights within the Constitution. Let's hear your theory on how the content for the Bill of Rights was chosen, and what the logical basis behind it was.





I've already linked this to you at least 3 times. Seems you are more interested in trolling than learning anything useful.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5085838350268647159#

I'll be sure to give this a watch tonight.

Wei Wu Wei
07-02-2010, 05:01 PM
My, my, my what a clueless idiot you really are. For starters, I don't care if you're Bruce Lee, Chuck Norris, Jackie Chan, Steven Segal, and Jean Claude Van Dam all rolled into one, I've yet to see a martial art that can stop a bullet. 2nd, did you know that 90% of all firefights are between people less than 4 feet apart? I have never heard of someone being shot at 25 feet in self defense. I'm trained in self defense for my job and I wear a vest and it's still not enough against a firearm. Tell you what though. You go take any martial art you want then bring all of that to a gun fight and let me know how you make out.

No one ever said any of the things you are arguing against. It seems, once again, you're arguing with yourself projected onto me. I think people should be able to own guns. I only said that gun ownership isn't a natural right, and that there is a distinction between self-defense and gun-ownership. While gun-ownership may, in some cases, fall under the category of self-defense, they are not the same category.

Constitutionally Speaking
07-02-2010, 05:09 PM
That's like claiming the right to vote is a "natural right", when the democratic-based system of government is man-made.


Self Preservation is a natural right, and that is what Coburn was referring to in his discussion on the 2nd amendment - it was the concept behind the amendment not the amendment itself. Same goes for the rest of your comments. He got to this point later in the clip - you must have missed that part.He simply chose this example to express it, knowing that she is a liar when it comes to the 2nd amendment

Wei Wu Wei
07-02-2010, 05:25 PM
Self Preservation is a natural right, and that is what Coburn was referring to in his discussion on the 2nd amendment - it was the concept behind the amendment not the amendment itself. Same goes for the rest of your comments. He got to this point later in the clip - you must have missed that part.He simply chose this example to express it, knowing that she is a liar when it comes to the 2nd amendment

Right, but having a shed full of chemical weapons and grenades and hacking into the systems of government institutions that you feel are threatening you are NOT rights.

They are all rooted in self-preservation, but self-preservation is the natural right, not all of these extensions.

The constitution specifies gun-ownership as a legal right, a branch that's rooted in the right of self-preservation, but they are not equal.

THE RESISTANCE
07-02-2010, 06:19 PM
My thoughts on my local forum about this,( lazy! don't want to type them again and configure them in the argument here)

http://forum.goupstate.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1216&start=40

(I am.. Voice from ...THE RESISTANCE. Not enough Charactors available to use same on this forum.)

warpig
07-02-2010, 06:30 PM
Not only does she not know, she doesn't care.

namvet
07-02-2010, 06:34 PM
So why are guns always the topic? Why can't a person learn martial arts? Why can't a person learn any self-defense technique? Why are guns always the topic of self-defense? I hope we haven't become such a nation of pansies that we need to be able to kill a man 25 feet away from us to avoid a scary close encounter.

If the natural right is self-defense, then all that implies is self-defense is ALWAYS a valid defense in a court of law, when applicable. The right to bear arms is more than simply self-defense, it's specifically about ownership of firearms. You don't need guns to protect yourself, humans defended themselves for hundreds of thousands of years before guns were invented. So yes, it's a constitutional right, but the idea that owning a GUN is a 'natural right' is laughable.





Society itself is unnatural, the right to participate in governing the society is a derivative of a man-made, symbolic institution. That doesn't make it any "less important", it is in our constitution after all, but you're really fudging the lines when you just clump everything under the umbrella of "natural rights".





No they are not. They are an expression of protections for the sake of a free society. Natural rights are listed in the Declaration of Independence, and even that is arguable, since that document is hardly scripture, nor is it written in the form of an argument, but (as it's named) a declaration.



Please explain to me what a natural right is.


So why are guns always the topic? Why can't a person learn martial arts? Why can't a person learn any self-defense technique? Why are guns always the topic of self-defense? I hope we haven't become such a nation of pansies that we need to be able to kill a man 25 feet away from us to avoid a scary close encounter.

you know martial arts, we know winchester

Constitutionally Speaking
07-02-2010, 06:53 PM
Right, but having a shed full of chemical weapons and grenades and hacking into the systems of government institutions that you feel are threatening you are NOT rights.

They are all rooted in self-preservation, but self-preservation is the natural right, not all of these extensions.

The constitution specifies gun-ownership as a legal right, a branch that's rooted in the right of self-preservation, but they are not equal.


And this has something to do with my original post??? How??

warpig
07-02-2010, 06:55 PM
So yes, it's a constitutional right, but the idea that owning a GUN is a 'natural right' is laughable.


Why isn't it a natural right? It is a means of self defense, self defense is a natural right, owning a gun is just a means to an end.

malloc
07-03-2010, 07:43 AM
With a gun. That's why it's a constitutional right.

That's not the same as a natural right though.


A right is a right and it cannot, by definition, be granted through any particular process because there exists no higher authority which has the privilege of granting said action. Hopefully after you research the materials I've given you for the third time, you will come to a conclusion between a right and a privilege. A right cannot be either "natural" or "constitutional", that's absurd on it's face and even the most left wing, "living document" constitutional scholar would have to agree. Rights existed prior to the Constitution, rights existed prior the formation of industrialized societies. Rights have always existed, even if they were oppressed or denied, they still existed. The logical conclusion is that the 2nd Amendment embodies the right of an individual to preserve all other rights inherent in himself through force when necessary.




So what about grenades? What about landmines? What about small rockets? What about chemical bombs? Should everything be allowed because technology allows a perpetual arms race? Clearly not, some things are okay, some are not, but we decide that based on our interpretation of laws and in this case on our constitution, there's nothing natural about what technologies we have a right to. If people decide their society needs to be one where people can own guns, then so be it, that's a constitutional right, but not a "natural" one.


Let me quote you substituting the right to free thought for the right to self preservation.



So what about newsprint? What about scripture? What about small blogs? What about cable access? Should everything be allowed because technology allows a perpetual idea race? Clearly not, some things are okay, some are not, but we decide that based on our interpretation of laws and in this case on our constitution, there's nothing natural about what technologies we have a right to. If people decide their society needs to be one where people can own free thought, then so be it, that's a constitutional right, but not a "natural" one.


Read your real quote along with my revised quote carefully. Do you not see how absolutely shallow and totalitarian your ideas are?

Let me try again:



A well educated Electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.


Now do you see how completely out of touch your argument has become?

With that I will address the brass tacks of your real, but by now irrelevant argument.



So what about grenades? What about landmines? What about small rockets? What about chemical bombs? Should everything be allowed because technology allows a perpetual arms race? Clearly not, some things are okay, some are not, but we decide that based on our interpretation of laws

Arms and ordnance have different historical meanings for very significant historical purposes. Arms are those things intended to be used by a single person in the defense of his home and homestead. Ordnance are those things intended to be used a crew, a squad, or even a society which has agreed upon military action. Learn the difference. There's a reason why the Constitution didn't say "The right of the people...","to keep and bear Arms & Ordnance ...","shall not be infringed.".

Furthermore, the limitations of personal responsibility also apply to the right to keep and bear arms just as they do to free speech, and freedom of expression. If my speech kills without just cause, like I incite a riot, I am prosecuted and convicted. Similarly if my ownership of arms kills without just cause, like I shoot somebody out of spite, or even on accident while trying to defend myself, I'm still personally responsible for the outcome.

You had better rethink your ideas on gun ownership use, and put those re-thought ideas right up around the freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of privacy if you ever want to regain the classical liberal title. They are all hand in hand. Right now you an absolute statist who would love nothing more than to see your fellow citizens enslaved by a state machine who promises utopia but delivers only total control.

NJCardFan
07-03-2010, 12:08 PM
You don't need guns to protect yourself, humans defended themselves for hundreds of thousands of years before guns were invented. So yes, it's a constitutional right, but the idea that owning a GUN is a 'natural right' is laughable.

And humans took care of themselves for thousands of years without government intervention yet you seem to have no problem with the infringement of government. You are a hypocrite of the nth degree.

PoliCon
07-03-2010, 12:16 PM
Progressives as natural fans of tyranny and statism are of course against your right to defend yourself as an individual.