Hello:

Help me out here. IF an individual liberty, enumerated by the Bill of Rights and upheld by the Supreme Court as it was yesterday, is celebrated so vigorously by the right, why don't they celebrate EVERY time an individual liberty is upheld?

I don't understand the disconnect. The Bill of Rights makes sacrosanct, certain INDIVIDUAL liberties, the ownership of guns being only one of many.

The right disdains the Fourth Amendment, which recognizes an individuals right to be free from unreasonable searches... the Fifth Amendment, which recognizes the right of an individual to be given DUE PROCESS, the 6th, which recognizes an individuals right to be free from unusual punishment... I could go on...

Is the disconnect that the Second Amendment recognizes the rights of those who AREN'T in the throes of a government prosecution, and the REST of the rights DO deal with being charged with a crime, and/or looking for criminal behavior?

Why are the rights of the individual supreme when it comes to owning guns (and I believe that they are), but the REST of an individuals rights take second fiddle to the government.

I don't get it.

excon

Wow, nobody wants to address your post?

I'll bite.

I have no problem with individual liberties, as they apply to American Citizens.

I DO however, have a problem when those rights are given to enemy combatants, captured in the field of battle.

That ONE, was just plain stupid.

What now, the soldiers need to pick up all the bullet casings, measure the distance from the captured enemy, to the soldier he just shot, or blew up, do we need to provide tape recorders and video cameras so that the soldier can document every moment while in the heat of the battle?

I say again, STUPID!

Ex
As I have been trying to point out on other postings about the Heller decision is that there is not a single personal right that is absolute. Scalia made that very clear in the wording of his majoirty opinion about the 2nd amendment.

Here is the exact wording he used :

"We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and take seriously the concerns raised (from those)... who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."

I also agree with progunr about extending constitutional guarantees to terrorists captured on the battle field .

Hello guys:

I'm not talking about terrorists. I'm talking about us.

excon

It's long been held that no right is absolute. One of the most well-known examples is that the First doesn't give you the right to yell 'fire' in crowded theater. As for the 2nd, self-defense is a basic right - not just of humans but of all living things - probably the most basic right of all. But even I don't have a problem with some firearm regs (no fully auto w/o special lic, no carry in gov't bldgs like courthouse).

I've always asked the question excon did. It's one of the things the NRA does that pisses me off - all that railing about the ACLU. Why should they gripe about an organization dedicated to protecting the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights? NRA only fights for one. And while many in the ACLU might not actually agree with the NRA on the individual nature of the 2nd, they do defend gun owners. (Case a couple years ago where they took the side of a hunter in WV.)

But it does seem like the conservatives, who claim to be all for limited gov't, sure like the idea of the gov't snooping to find out what we're doing...

My response had one sentence in agreement about foreign detainees. My larger response was about rights not being absolute.
Freedoms are restricted in the public interest on grounds of national security, to preserve public order, to protect public health, to secure recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others or to meet the requirements of the "general welfare" .