America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Blacklisted is a response to your right.
You have a right to say what you want. You do not have a right to not have to face repercussions. Plenty of moronic conservatives have said racist or homophobic things and been correctly blacklisted by advertisers.

One doesn't have a right to not have to face people not liking what you say or do.

So only the government can violate your rights?

Seems like a narrow definition....

The entirety of the bill of rights (which you are referencing if you discuss free speech or privacy) is based on what the government cannot do to citizens.

There is no "freedom of speech" between two non government entities. Think about how you would really imagine that happening. It can't without someone committing a crime.

Similarly with right to privacy. Other than the government, your privacy can't really be invaded without a law being broken.

Hate them

So, if the local gubment takes my guns it's clearly a violation of my rights correct..?? Unless I've lost that right be being a felon or somethin..

Sounds right

Yeah

those are only philosophical concepts, and not really baked into any societal structure.

Well, just my mucked up brain here but honestly to take away my freedom to decide for myself. Ex: Do I go with a handgun for home protection that holds 13 rounds or an AR or a shotgun. I have had a stroke and partially blind. So I think I will go with a shotgun. Maybe with a large clip but no can't do that because of what I guess we are calling a Restriction because it holds more shots than what some person that has never met me has decided is best for me? Maybe it is a shotgun that I prefer and is made as a tactical weapon for close quarters.

Freedom meaning I do have the right to decide for myself and not have the opinion of others such as these kids or my government make it for me. I was trusted for over 14 years with other people's lives why now do I have to get treated like I am ignorant, retarded, a criminal. In taking away the option to buy a tactical weapon what we are essentially doing is treating everyone like they are the ones that have mental illness, to stupid, etc. We are discussing the fact of if we should make it so everyone is treated as if they broke the law and lost that freedom which I see as wrong.

See, I live in a country where I am supposed to have the right to "free speech" but let's go way further out in left field. I also live in a country where I have the right to break the law. I will have consequences to pay for it but I still have that right. We all have that right. You do have the right to decide if you will ride around in a car without your child being in a car seat, or to not buckle up yourself. But to take away that option all together away from you which is what a lot of these "Restrictions" are asking for. They are not just asking to stand by the laws that are already in place by checking to see if I have a record of mental illness, if I have commited federal crimes, standard waiting periods etc. I see these "Restrictions" as a breech of my freedom to make my own choice. This is what that is being talked about doing for everyone.

I keep seeing comparisons to owning a car vs an AR. yes on the surface it seems crazy but.... Also in comparison to a law abiding citizen it is the same in the aspect of taking away the option to own a car from everyone because a lot of people do get killed by such say drunk driving etc. To those people and to me it is just as crazy. Why because everyone then lose that option all together even when they have not been caught drunk driving, they have not been caught killing others with a car.

Freedom yes is a birthright" It is a right in the USA and to take those freedoms for any cause is wrong. I understand taking them from ones that have consequences for their actions but to group everyone in that pool because of convenience to a problem nahhh I just don't see it. Hence comparing cars to AR's Drunk driving is a very very dangerous problem but to treat everyone as if they are drunk drivers is wrong.

Apologies for the book, I hope what I am trying to say makes sense.

Obama tried with the EPA restrictions..

I drive a 4 cylinder 86 Alfa Romeo Spider

There ya go..

I got a Nissan Altima

Beat that buddy!
Drove it from Memphis TN to the herf at FGMs place on 1/4 tank of gas....

Well I didn't drive the wife did but you get my meaning.

Hmm..always thought they were..I'll read it...

Certain ones are, of course. Our current society is based on specific philosophers. But again, that also doesn't mean we are adopting all their ideas either.

One of my vehicles only has 2 cylinders, but that's because I like the wind in my (um)...hair, and bugs in my teeth

I was just kiddin..

Excerpts from the wikipedia link I posted

The United States Declaration of Independence, meanwhile, is based upon the "self-evident" truth that "all men are … endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights".[7]

Likewise, different philosophers and statesmen have designed different lists of what they believe to be natural rights; almost all include the right to life and liberty as the two highest priorities. H. L. A. Hart argued that if there are any rights at all, there must be the right to liberty, for all the others would depend upon this. T. H. Green argued that “if there are such things as rights at all, then, there must be a right to life and liberty, or, to put it more properly to free life.”
John Locke emphasized "life, liberty and property" as primary. However, despite Locke's influential defense of the right of revolution, Thomas Jefferson substituted "pursuit of happiness" in place of "property" in the United States Declaration of Independence.

17th-century English philosopher John Locke discussed natural rights in his work, identifying them as being "life, liberty, and estate (property)", and argued that such fundamental rights could not be surrendered in the social contract. Preservation of the natural rights to life, liberty, and property was claimed as justification for the rebellion of the American colonies. As George Mason stated in his draft for the Virginia Declaration of Rights, "all men are born equally free," and hold "certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity."[16] Another 17th-century Englishman, John Lilburne (known as Freeborn John), who came into conflict with both the monarchy of King Charles I and the military dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell governed republic, argued for level human basic rights he called "freeborn rights" which he defined as being rights that every human being is born with, as opposed to rights bestowed by government or by human law.

These themes converged in the debate about American Independence. While Jefferson was writing the Declaration of Independence, Richard Price in England sided with the Americans' claim "that Great Britain is attempting to rob them of that liberty to which every member of society and all civil communities have a natural and unalienable title."

Did a few searches comparing natural and legal law. Natural law is, as you said the 'moral, philosophical distant cousin of legal, common law.

But if you read even the wiki link all the way through I think you'd agree my DNA comment is valid.

Do you actually read what others write? I said your attempts to justify you point of view have became ridiculous. Not that your point of view is ridiculous. And yes I do believe freedom is more important than life because a life without freedom is one not worth living. Yes school shootings are phuked up. But they are statistically insignificant. That is a fact. Tell the 170,000 Americans who are diagnosed with cancer annually knowing that the 56,000 of them that will die that school shootings are much more important to stop than to cure cancer. Oh, by the way less than 100 children die a year from school shootings. So in the grand scheme of things I find school shootings abhorrent but insignificant on a national level. Obviously on a personal level they are extremely significant.

My point is stating things like natural law is the DNA of America is BS and you should know it. The constitution is the basis of America. Certain natural laws are part of the bill of rights. But your linkage is incorrect. I am unwilling to give up Americans rights just because it is the easy thing to do. BTW, I don't even own a gun, but I will fight for Cacmans right of gun ownership every day. Yes, you are not advocating to take his guns away, but I see a slippery slope that could lead to a civilian gun less society.

If the right to assembly was taken advantage of by some murderous extremist group that were blatantly dangerous to society, would the founding fathers say, too bad, you can't under any circumstances modify what we wrote 250 years ago? Isn't that against plain old common sense?
If neo Nazis bought Fox News (which for the record is only a rumor )and were spreading antisemitism, racism and hate to the extent that it became pervasive and suddenly tons of yahoos starting acting on their message, shouldn't that freedom of speech be reexamined? And modified? Not eliminated, just reexamined, modified?
Or the right to bear arms: when the 2nd amendment was drafted it took one minute to load
2 shots in to a rifle.

To me? You sound sort of like a constitution fundamentalist. To me? These are amenable laws/rights. Our slope isn't slippery. Well, not for this anyway....

I hate that good people might have to be denied rights they've always enjoyed less than I hate doing nothing and sitting on my hands waiting for the next copycat shooting.

We both love this country. I love my rights and fear dictatorial tyrannical governments and laws as much as anyone. Being open minded about what might stop school shootings and being willing to try certain things we haven't tried yet or sufficiently (eg giving up certain weapons that are too easy to buy and ridiculously lethal) is again, common sense.
And I think patriotic.

hmmm...can you buy real cuban smokes there?

what are we waitin' fer?

Well if you're gonna stay on subject, fine, be like that.

I remembered so-called natural rights being the springboard for much of what are now called legal rights.