rights are subject to "reasonable" restrictions?

[Kinsman]

Gotta jump in with the Absolutists here.

Wanna grow yer own? Go right ahead. Inject Drano into your veins? Hey, I guess those veins are yours. You say you publish that sickening manure like NAMBLA? First amendment affirms that it is your right to do it.

But the first one of you who tries to seduce a little kid, or sell him dope or Drano.....well, tall trees, short ropes and speedy public trials were meant for you.

I firmly believe that you have the right to do anything you like as long as it doesn't infringe upon my rights......and while I'm not a lawyer (and would never play one on TV), from what I have learned this is exactly what was believed by the founders of the Republic.

 

[alan]

I suppose the argument hinges on how one spells or defines "reasonable" as well as whom it is that is doing the defining and spelling.

Other than this, one thing is important to keep in mind. From the mouths of the anti-gunners, we have had the following: That their ultimate goal is the total proscription of firearms. Given this, now please tell me once again, all about this business of "reasonable restrictions".

As for libel and or slander, the law dies not, in any way, prevent me from making libelous or slanderous remarks to or about you. What it does do is establish that if I choose to so speak or write, that I do so at my own risk, for the offended party has the right at law, to bring suit against me.

 

[Drjones]

I suppose the argument hinges on how one spells or defines "reasonable" as well as whom it is that is doing the defining and spelling.

Other than this, one thing is important to keep in mind. From the mouths of the anti-gunners, we have had the following: That their ultimate goal is the total proscription of firearms. Given this, now please tell me once again, all about this business of "reasonable restrictions".

AMEN!!!

Perhaps those of you who disagree with us absolutists could answer me this:

1) How many more "reasonable" restrictions could we POSSIBLY dream up, above and beyond the 20,000 gun laws already on the books?

2) Look what years and years of agreeing to "reasonable" restrictions have gotten us. Look at where many states are today.

 

[labgrade]

"But the first one of you who tries to seduce a little kid, or sell him dope or Drano.....well, tall trees, short ropes and speedy public trials were meant for you. "

Hey! Bad form!.

(& very much so, please, please don't go harpin' on Kinsman here. I, at the the very least, am quite aware of the spirit intended, have no intent to do as he mentioned, nor request he get gentle attention from the mods )

(& please, in the spirit intended is all I make mention ..... )

&

 

[Rovert]

Yeah, guys... but hold up a minute.

Those of you who are Absolutists clearly believe in punishment for transgression. And rightly so... you believe that an individual has rights, but also has responsibility to be accountable for his actions.

And, from your different replies, you obviously have illustrated that you believe the applied punishment should vary with the degree of offense. For instance, hanging is a bit severe for libel, and execution by firing squad is a bit steep for shoplifting. I mean, really... lots of teenagers have heisted a candy bar or two... but we don't cut their hands off, do we? After all, we're not barbarians.

No, what we do for punishment here in the US of A, for those who have reached adulthood, instead, is to jail people. So, follow my logic here, and let me know if I'm right.

Absolutists agree that:

Transgression of rights = Crime
Crime = Punishment of the offender
Punishment = Jail
Jail = Denial of Freedom
Freedom is one of those cherished "absolute" rights, as in life LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness.

Helloooooo... see where we're going, here?

If the Absolutist philosophy is that all rights are inviolate, then you can never, ever, punish someone for transgressing against someone else's rights, because that punishment, in and of itself, is a denial of one of those inviolate rights, despite the fact that the person in question has, himself, been the transgressor.

Therefore, you Absolutists should be arriving with me at the fact that rights are NOT absolute, and that they CAN be denied to those who demonstrate inability to abide by the checks, balances, and limitations set by the rights of others.

Or, did I misunderstand someone somewhere?

The plot thickens...

 

[Drjones]

Or, did I misunderstand someone somewhere?

Yep. Sure did.

You do NOT have a right to infringe upon the rights of others.

Your rights end where mine begin.

It's that simple.

 

[Nightfall]

Exactly right. An individual's rights are limited only when they begin to infringe on someone else's through proven activity.

Unfortunately, this isn't the direction the USA is moving in, IMHO. The gov't decided this isn't the case and my rights only extend to the point they think I might hurt other people. Evidence of such and ‘innocent until proven guilty' on an individual basis is a dead concept it seems.

 

[Rovert]

BTW, Alan is right... we need to differentiate between CRIMINAL and CIVIL prosecution.

Dr. Jones:

1) How many more "reasonable" restrictions could we POSSIBLY dream up, above and beyond the 20,000 gun laws already on the books?

I think we here at THR (and TFL) agree that there is no sense of balance for the anti-gun lobby. Where we libertarians tend to be more circumspect, intelligent, and judicious about our views, the left wing just knows what's best for us, period. I was NEVER, not for ONE SECOND suggesting that we need so many gun laws. What I think we're talking about is if, in certain circumstances, the 2nd Amendment right can be prohibited to an individual, based on his specific history or character. Trust me... I live in NJ, home of the first "Smart Gun" law... nobody understands oppressive firearms legislation better than I do. Believe me when I tell you I have a pretty damned good handle on it. :banghead:

 

[Drjones]

Rovert;

Perhaps you could do me a small favor.

Show me where a Founding Father, or major philosopher who influenced the Fathers, even hints at the notion of a right to infringe upon the rights of others.


Thank you

 

[Drjones]

I think we here at THR (and TFL) agree that there is no sense of balance for the anti-gun lobby. Where we libertarians tend to be more circumspect, intelligent, and judicious about our views, the left wing just knows what's best for us, period. I was NEVER, not for ONE SECOND suggesting that we need so many gun laws. What I think we're talking about is if, in certain circumstances, the 2nd Amendment right can be prohibited to an individual, based on his specific history or character. Trust me... I live in NJ, home of the first "Smart Gun" law... nobody understands oppressive firearms legislation better than I do. Believe me when I tell you I have a pretty damned good handle on it.

Agreed.

This is just a friendly debate, no more.

 

[Rovert]

DJ, by the way, please visit us at www.njcsd.org and jump on our bulletin board, if you needed further convincing that we're all on the same team, here!

New Jersey bites.

 

[Strings]

another non-lawyer here...

... but wouldn't the concept of "your rights end where they MIGHT infringe on another" amount to prior restraint? And isn't "prior restraint" unconstitutional?

As for the felon arguement: I have a friend who was convicted of a non violent felony (imbezzlement). He served his time in jail, is paying back the money he stole. Once the debt is cleared, and his probation is over... he still can't vote, touch a gun, or hold public office. Meaning: his "debt to society" is paid, but he is still punished further...

 

[Drjones]

... but wouldn't the concept of "your rights end where they MIGHT infringe on another" amount to prior restraint?

Unless you could explain to me how shooting someone does not infringe upon their right to life, your logic is flawed.

And unless you can tell me how yelling "fire" in a crowded theater would NOT cause a stampede, and VERY likely cause at least several people to be killed and or injured in the stampede you caused, you don't have an argument.

EDIT: Furthermore, where did anyone here talk about "your rights end where they MIGHT infringe upon another"?

And isn't "prior restraint" unconstitutional?

I don't know, but I sure hope so. Not that any of our leaders know what the Constitution is anyway....

As for the felon arguement: I have a friend who was convicted of a non violent felony (imbezzlement). He served his time in jail, is paying back the money he stole. Once the debt is cleared, and his probation is over... he still can't vote, touch a gun, or hold public office. Meaning: his "debt to society" is paid, but he is still punished further...

I rest my case. Thank you for posting that.

 

[Erik]

So, if you are alone in amovie theater can you yell "fire!" with impunity?

What if you own the theater?

 

[DeltaElite]

In a perfect world, rights would be absolute, but this is reality and rights are not absolute.

 

[Strings]

Drjones

>Unless you could explain to me how shooting someone does not infringe upon their right to life, your logic is flawed.<

I was refering to Nightfall's comment above, of how the government views restrictions. Basically, me owning a gun, or smoking pot IN MY OWN HOME, or viewing pornography (again, in my own home), or what-have-you, does not infringe upon anyone else's rights. IF I were to do something that would so step, penalties would be incurred...

>And unless you can tell me how yelling "fire" in a crowded theater would NOT cause a stampede, and VERY likely cause at least several people to be killed and or injured in the stampede you caused, you don't have an argument.<

Ahh... but there, do we have restrictions (prior restraint), or do we have an "action/consequence" arrangement (it's the later, I think)...

>EDIT: Furthermore, where did anyone here talk about "your rights end where they MIGHT infringe upon another"?<

Nightfall mentioned it, and I've heard it as an arguement for the victim disarmament crowd for quite a while now...

>I don't know, but I sure hope so. Not that any of our leaders know what the Constitution is anyway....<

Theoretically, we have multiple ways of reminding them...

>I rest my case. Thank you for posting that.<

It's something that has burned me ever since it happened. He was under the control of a VERY domineering father, who gave him an allowance from his job for gas money and food at college (he still lived at home). Because of the messed up situation he was in, he saw no other option than to steal from his workplace (there is a LOOONG story behind this). The situation resulted in a light sentence, but it's still a felony, with all the repurcussions involved...

 

[Nightfall]

Hypothetical: Rights should end where they infringe upon another's, not before. Hypothetically then, somebody with the right equipment, money, and resources to own and safely contain a nuclear warhead could then own one... until he/she infringes upon the rights of others by setting it off and killing people or not maintaining it and hurting others with hazardous material, etc. We're back to the situation of ‘reasonable' infringement upon the Bill of Rights to help prevent horrible crimes. Now most would agree it's reasonable to not allow individuals to own nukes to keep society safe. But to many, it seems 'reasonable' to restrict the sale of semi-auto rifles because they can be used to kill a larger amount of people more quickly than a bolt action. What do we do now? If we give credit to the thought of reasonable restriction on weapons such as those which can cause large amounts of damage such as nukes, cruise missiles, etc. than we leave the can of worms open as to the definition of reasonable.

Seems it does often return to the definition of ‘reasonable'.

 

[Bruce in West Oz]

A brief interjection from the other side of the globe.

The argument:

You do NOT have a right to infringe upon the rights of others.
Your rights end where mine begin.

is, IMHO, a very dangerous one for gun owners. It was used to disarm gun owners in Australia.

The logic?

"I have a right to be and feel safe. Your ownership of a firearm diminishes that right. Ergo, you can't have a firearm."

Sadly, the government and courts agreed.



Bruce

 

[labgrade]

& Bruce, that's exactly where it will (has) lead(s).

You must understand that most - easily 99%+ on this board are already law-abiding folks & wouldn't ingfringe on anothers' rights if paid to do so, are polite, say "Yes Ma'm & Sir."

In many ways, I could care what the rest of the world has to offer, I only want a relation, if you will, with like-mindeds.

That in itself seems to be tough enough sometimes while drawing distinctions on what we actually believe.

God help us if we cannot even agree that some of us need no restrictions placed on us as we already have a more limiting moral aspect than any legalese ever could.

"Unless you could explain to me how shooting someone does not infringe upon their right to life, your logic is flawed."

Not at all. They never had the right to actions that would cause you to shoot them in the first place. Nobody here is suggesting the willy-nilly shooting of another, but if they iitiated a certain level of force against you, you would most certainly be justified in shooting 'em w/no violation of rights whatsoever. It would be they who choose their our fate, & justifiably so.

"And unless you can tell me how yelling "fire" in a crowded theater would NOT cause a stampede, and VERY likely cause at least several people to be killed and or injured in the stampede you caused, you don't have an argument."

& if there was a fire & you didn't shout out? How many more might be killed due to your inaction?

Main reason the "crowded theater" argument doesn't hold water is the difference in circumstances - same as with most anything societal = in one instance, it likely is criminal, the other, you're a hero through the warning.

 

[Wildalaska]

Rights as absolutes is a nice, philosophically neat idea that is very appealing. And I think that you can hold rights as absolutes right up to the point that you allow another living breathing human being onto your desert island. After that, its all about which restrictions are proper and which are not.

Bravo!



Over and over again, the 2nd amendment absolutists rant on and on from the safety of their little cyber-spaces and DO NOTHING to support their positions. Walk down the sreets with your belt feds boys, or dont you have the courage of your convictions...???

WildadnauseumadinfinitumAlaska

 

[Kinsman]

Over and over again, the 2nd amendment absolutists rant on and on from the safety of their little cyber-spaces and DO NOTHING to support their positions.

Yeah, I suppose that's me. Even though I talk to lots of people, I do most of my preaching to the choir. I did own a non-PRK gun when I was in SoCal. And I transported rifles and ammunition inside the cab of my pickup, together, in violation of the 'law'. Does that count?

I apologize for not taking the high road in an earlier post; I don't mean to say we should start hanging thieves....but a child molester......

 

[Battler]

Consider the definition of "aggression" in discussion of individual rights.

To deprive someone of their rights is in and of itself an act of aggression. Yes, even if you vote for the "state" to do it for you.


Battler.

 

[Chris Rhines]

Another way of looking at things -

Rights are the product of a contractual agreement between two or more parties. Said agreements can be as small-scale as the handshake purchase between neghibors of an outboard motor (thus establishing the right of party A to possess the outboard motor, and of party B to possess some money), or as large-scale as the Bill of Rights (in theory, anyway.)

With this in mind, one can see that rights are indeed absolute, even in a complicated-nay-chaotic society with millions of individual members.

- Chris

 

[nualle]

I have never understood the appeal of the contractual theory of rights.

According to that theory: In lack of a contract, one person has no rights that another is bound to respect. You have no right to anything, including your own life, as far as I am concerned, until I contractually agree that you do (at the price, of course, of reciprocal agreement from you). Therefore, so long as I refuse to obligate myself contractually, I remain perfectly free to infringe whatever you may consider to be your rights, to the extent of my capacity.

Even Kant's categorical imperative sets the bar higher.

Once you posit the contractual basis, you cannot assume the contract. It must be explicit or it doesn't exist.

The whole premise of an individual right is that it exists without regard to the will (voluntary contract) of any other—including and especially the will of those with the real capacity to infringe it with practical impunity (e.g., a despotic monarch). It protects the minority (even the minority of one) against the tyranny of power (even the power of the majority).

 

[Chris Rhines]

In lack of a contract, one person has no rights that another is bound to respect.....Therefore, so long as I refuse to obligate myself contractually, I remain perfectly free to infringe whatever you may consider to be your rights, to the extent of my capacity.

That's correct, but I fail to understand your objection. Look at it this way. I decide not to enter into any contractual agreements that would codify my right to life (and thus require my acceptence of the right to life of others.) And in order to demonstrate this, I go out and kill someone. But by doing so, I have just taken a psoitive action indicating that I do not accept my own right to live. Therefore, someone (we'll leave out 'who' for now) is perfectly free to end my life.

How is that any different from the enforcement of rights under any other system?

Once you posit the contractual basis, you cannot assume the contract. It must be explicit or it doesn't exist.

I agree completely. Of course, an explicit contract does not need to be very elaborate in form.

The problem at present is twofold - first, an explicit contract for outlining individual rights does not exist. Second, we have placed the responsibility for enforcing contracts in the hands of the same organization that has demonstrated little regard for their sanctity in the past. Resolving this issue would require the government to give up its monoploy on contract arbitration and enforcement.

- Chris