[Tuttyd]

the right to defend yourself isn't a natural right ?

Yes, it is, but you don't have any natural right to defend yourself with any type of firepower you choose. The right to bear arms for these purposes would be subject to civil legislation.

[tomder55]

Yes, it is, but you don't have any natural right to defend yourself with any type of firepower you choose. The right to bear arms for these purposes would be subject to civil legislation.

In our case ,that right is guaranteed in the Constitution.

[Tuttyd]

in our case ,that right is guaranteed in the Constitution.

And...

[talaniman]

You have a right to bear arms and the arms you bear are subject to discussion, and regulation. And its not for self defense, its for defense of the common good against a tyrannical government. Again, a highly subjective definition.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That's also why we have elections every two years.

[speechlesstx]

You have a right to bear arms and the arms you bear are subject to discussion, and regulation. And its not for self defense, its for defense of the common good against a tyrannical government. Again, a highly subjective definition.



That's also why we have elections every two years.

That "well regulated militia" clause could have said "blueberry donuts." The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is what's relevant. What part of the right, the people, and shall not be infringed do you not comprehend?

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. -District of Columbia Et al. v. Heller

[tomder55]

You have a right to bear arms and the arms you bear are subject to discussion, and regulation. And its not for self defense, its for defense of the common good against a tyrannical government. Again, a highly subjective definition.


Quote:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
That's also why we have elections every two years.

Do you really want to debate what the founders meant by 'militia ' in the 19th century ? It is very clear in all their writing that it has no relation to the 21st century definition. Here is a hint for the left... rights are not an issue of "the common good " they are individual rights against the threat of a tyrannical government.

[tomder55]

And....

What do you mean "and " ? Rights are not deemed by governments . Powers are .

[Tuttyd]

Maybe not in Austrailia....but in the USA it is.

Again, I would say, this is not correct on two subjects.

Firstly, we don't have a Bill of Rights so the argument isn't applicable to my country.

Secondly, the individual right aspect of the 2nd Amendment relies of the dependent clause that involves the subject "militia" According to SCOTUS that is.

As far as 1st Amendment is concerned there is no such previses that rely on such a clause to secure the individual aspect. This is one important reason why they are different.

[Tuttyd]

in our case ,that right is guaranteed in the Constitution.

Rights can only be guaranteed by law. In the case of the 2nd this guarantee would be found in a common law tradition dating back a long way.

[tomder55]

The constitution and the law are one in the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

[Tuttyd]

the constitution and the law are one in the same.
Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Without having read the wiki article I would say they are one and the same, but in a very interesting way. Interesting in terms of "natural rights" At least this is what I think

[smoothy]

Again, I would say, this is not correct on two subjects.

Firstly, we don't have a Bill of Rights so the argument isn't applicable to my country.

Secondly, the individual right aspect of the 2nd Amendment relies of the dependent clause that involves the subject "militia" According to SCOTUS that is.

As far as 1st Amendment is concerned there is no such previses that rely on such a clause to secure the individual aspect. This is one important reason why they are different.

The Bill of rights does not differentiate. Rights are rights and can not be taken away simply by dreaming up a law... meaning any law that would be in conflict with ANY of the listed rights would be deamed unconstitutional.

Its clear that Australian citizens have no inherant "Rights" and thus you are at the whim of whatever political party that is in control at the moment.

[talaniman]

While we are at the whims of whatever loony fringe minority like the TParty can come up with that's anti government. That's why we are shutdown, and Australia is not, and you fringers are so proud of that fact.

[speechlesstx]

Moved...

[smoothy]

While we are at the whims of whatever loony fringe minority like the TParty can come up with that's anti government. That's why we are shutdown, and Australia is not, and you fringers are so proud of that fact.

Wake up Tal... we are in shutdown because Prince Harry and Obama have refused perfectly legal and legitimate spending bills to be approved. Many of which the House has generated... and passed to the Senate, that never ever saw the Senate floor for a vote..

While in the ozone of the lunatic lefts imaginary utopia... where everything caters to the wants and whims of their messiah, the Brown Bozo... the fact remains in the real world where we actually are... the House is who decides what will and won't be an any spending bill.

THere is a shutdown because democrats are having a childish tantrum and meltdown.

[talaniman]

The house can propose whatever it wants, the answer is hell NO! The house proposals are as stupid as the TPARTY. You got what you wanted, the government is shut down.

What you aren't happy about it?

[tomder55]

The house can propose whatever it wants, the answer is hell NO! The house proposals are as stupid as the TPARTY. You got what you wanted, the government is shut down.

What you aren't happy about it?

The emperor and the Dems owns the shut down .They blew off one Republic CR bill after another . So they own it ,and the emperor will own it if a debt limit resolution isn't reached . But he won't let it go that far... it would mean he would actually have to do his job and make allocation priorities.

[smoothy]

The house can propose whatever it wants, the answer is hell NO! The house proposals are as stupid as the TPARTY. You got what you wanted, the government is shut down.

What you aren't happy about it?

Its clear the Democrats are so stupid they think they are in a position to DEMAND what everyone else is going to do... News flash... Obama isn't a God figure... and neither is Harry Reid... the are both mentally ill men with delusions of grandeur.

You DON'T control the House and you are in NO position to demand the house do anything... and I hope they keep everything shut down until those two needle d*cks Harry and Barrak learn to show some respect to people who are NOT subserviant to them.

I never even had to put up with that from a customer... every time someone got an attitude like that with me... I told them, well this isn't going to happen today then... I'll call you back in a few weeks and see if we can try this again or not.

They always show a lot more respect when they have to wait a few weeks extra for getting rude.

[smoothy]

[Tuttyd]

The Bill of rights does not differentiate. Rights are rights and can not be taken away simply by dreaming up a law....meaning any law that would be in conflict with ANY of the listed rights would be deamed unconstitutional.

You have got 1 out of 3 correct. "Rights are rights" has no validity in this case because it is a tautology. It doesn't necessarily render the whole statement you made meaningless, but that is partly in error as well. This is because the only way rights can be realized is by people dreaming up legislation. Can you think of any other way of giving expression to these rights other than legislation?

The bit you got rights is that legislation can be tested against rights is actually correct. This is why some laws are deemed unconstitutional.

[/QUOTE=smoothy;3566115]

Its clear that Australian citizens have no inherant "Rights" and thus you are at the whim of whatever political party that is in control at the moment.
[/QUOTE]

At least decisions are made so government can getting on with the business at hand.