Rand Paul wants to equate being armed with being black

[Junkie Brewster]

Last night on the Rachel Maddow show, Rand Paul kept trying to state that businesses have the right to refuse service to people who are armed. He seemed to be trying to make the argument that if we want to "force" restaurants to serve people of color, then by default, we will require them to force businesses to serve people who are armed. This, of course, is patent bullshit, and although I thought Rachel Maddow did an excellent job holding Paul's crazy ass feet to the fire, I wish she had touched on this point. A gun owner can leave his weapon in his car. Melanin, though, is another story. A person doesn't stop being black just because Waffle House doesn't want a black person's business.

Thank you for letting me say that. I can't fucking believe anyone would actually try to make the argument that the possession of a firearm is an immutable characterisitc, like skin tone. Fuck you, Rand Paul, and fuck your firearm.

[shraby]

1. I agree with you, the analogy was meaningless. Someone

with a firearm is a potential physical threat to the other patrons of a business. Big difference. Rachel should have nailed that false comparison to the wall.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BootinUp]

2. I said the same thing as you in another thread. nt

[slackmaster]

3. Yes, being armed is a choice

Being black is not, unless you are the President of the United States.

:sarcasm:

[xchrom]

4. Recommend - that's one way Gun owners have evolved their

Imagined persecution and imagined threats to them selves.

They are now magically 'minority' status.

[madokie]

5. Or

fuck him with his firearm

He's a bigger nut than his dad and not too long ago I thought that was impossible to be

[Junkie Brewster]

8. I wish I could recommend a single post

Exactly.

[calimary]

47. It really does make me wonder what the fuck is the big deal with these people and their guns.

Their precious fucking guns. What is that really about? The gun they were born with isn't long enough? They're such weanies by nature that they've gotta have their precious fucking guns to prove their precious fucking macho? To prove they can intimidate you and threaten you and get in-yer-face so that makes them all big-ass (and, by extension, FAR better than you)? Everything's always gotta boil back down to being about their guns.

Their FUCKING DAMNED PRECIOUS FUCKING GUNS. Dear rand, honey, you're telling me things about yourself that you would be horrified to realize I've concluded.

:eyes:

[PSzymeczek]

71. Bingo!

The phallus substitute is so crucial to their manhood it's actually a part of them.

[barbtries]

6. i watched that

and was yelling "a person can't kill you with the color of their skin!" it is such a specious analogy, i was disappointed that rachel did not make that clear to him. it'll be all over the talking points now as if it is valid. yuck.

[Junkie Brewster]

9. I doubt it- it's pretty specious, even on the surface

I don't think they'll pursue this one. I love love LUV me some Rachel Maddow. I can only guess that she was blinded by teh stoopid.

[BootinUp]

11. She was focused on getting a direct answer

which would have been nice so we don't have to watch whole interviews to gleen someones fucked up world view.

[barbtries]

15. she was intent

on getting a yes or no to her question. i would have enjoyed seeing her eviscerate the so-called argument he posed.-

[dmallind]

10. A person can kill you with a steak knife. Should we panic about banning those in restaurants?

Yes it's asinine to compare guns and race - but the reason is not because of what guns "could do" but because of the intrinsic difference between a tool and a personal characteristic. It's OK not to allow people without a tie into a fancy restaurant but not because the tieless "could kill you".

[barbtries]

14. my point is it is a specious

argument. no more no less.

[dmallind]

20. Sure it is. But so is your reason for the difference. NT

[barbtries]

26. sorry

i accidentally put this as a reply to myself:


i'm anti-gun, and that's where my mind goes. you win.

[barbtries]

23. whatever

i'm anti-gun, and that's where my mind goes. you win.

[Junkie Brewster]

18. Some people, especially teabaggers, think black people are like guns

In that they believe black people are more likely to engage in violence.

[dmallind]

21. Both they and you are wrong

As you seem to think (people with) guns ARE more likely to enage in violence.

Black people really ARE like people with guns in one way - there is not much reason to be worried about either as a group distinct from their opposites. Individual people with guns may be violent, but so may individuals without. Same for blacks and non-blacks obviously.

[Junkie Brewster]

33. No, I don't think people with guns are more likely to engage in violence

Frankly, I have no idea where you got that idea. However, a person can leave his or her gun at home. A person can't leave their color at home.

[Statistical]

36. That isn't the point.

"However, a person can leave his or her gun at home. A person can't leave their color at home. "

The point is it is a right to not leave it at home.

Say hypothetically in the future there was a method to genetically alter black people so that their skin was lightened. Say even the government offered the treatment for free. Would you then claim it is ok for a business to discriminate against dark skinned people? I mean after all they CAN just join the majority.

Just because someone CAN do something doesn't mean they SHOULD be REQUIRED to do something.

People CAN decide not to protest the government.
People CAN accept a government controlled press.
People CAN give up their religion and accept state religion.
People CAN live with no due process.

People SHOULDN'T be forced to do that though.

BTW: Paul is a nutjob. A business is private property and if they want to ban guns or people not wearing suits that is their right as private property owner. The state on the other hand has no business banning guns if the private porperty owner has no problem with it.

Texas (and other states) strike a good balance. Guns are allowed. If restaurant wants to prohibit them they use a sign approved by the state to make sure it isn't ambiguous and then guns are prohibited.

[Junkie Brewster]

48. No, having a gun on you at all times isn't a right

Anymore than me having my cat with me at all times is a right.

A business should not have the right to discriminate based on skin color period, even if the business wants to discriminate against white people. A white person can get a deep tan, and they are still white. A black person can have her skin bleached and her hair straightened (FYI, they've been able to do this for a very long time), but they are still black. In fact, during the bad old days, a person who had one black grandparent and otherwise white ancestry was still considered to be black. No one is saying that a gun owner can't shop or eat or attend movies wherever and whever they wish.

They just can't do it with their gun, anymore than I can do it with my cat.

I really can't believe anyone would equate having to leave their gun in their car while they have dinner with being denied religious freedom and due process. You're putting me on, right?

[Statistical]

51. It is a RIGHT.

Maybe you don't want it to be a right, maybe it isn't even a good idea that it is a right, maybe someday the Constitutional will be amended to change the scope of that right. However right now today citizens in this country have a RIGHT (not a privilege to be considered by the state) to keep and bear arms.

So Held:
The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's 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. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed.

If there was a Constitutional amendment protecting your right to bear a cat then as silly as that is you would have a right to bear a cat.

[Junkie Brewster]

52. You have a right to have a gun

You don't have the right to have your gun on you at all times.

You have the right to free speech. You don't have the right to exercise your free speech all the time. For instance, you don't have the right to shout fire in a crowded theater.

[Statistical]

53. Right to keep and BEAR arms.

Bear as in to carry. You have a right to carry a firearm in a safe manner.

Also the theater analogy is weak at best. Shouting in a theater is an action that directly affects other people. Carrying a gun doesn't. One is an actual danger and one is the potential for danger. Anyone in a theater who is capable of speaking has the potential to cause harm. We don't make potential illegal we make actions illegal.

The more correct analogy would be you have a right to carry a gun you don't always have a right to shoot or brandish one.


Also you do have a right to yell fire in a theater, there may be a fire in the theater. There is no statute that specifically prohibits yelling fire in a theater. The outcome is what is subject to statutory restrictions. Depending on the scenario you may be perfectly justified in yelling fire. There may be a fire. Women are told to yell fire instead of help because they are statistically more likely to draw attention.

Your ACTIONS are subject to consequences though. Using the right to free speech may result in criminal or civil charges.
Just like someone carrying a firearm CAN result in criminal or civil charges.

You don't have the right to have your gun on you at all times.
Strawman. Nobody has claimed that except you.

Private property owners can always deny anyone from carrying a firearm on their property any property. You have no Constitutional right to free speech in my living room. The Constitution protects against infringement by the government not private property owners. We don't need the government to put blanket restrictions on rights. If Denny's doesn't want lawful carrying of firearms then can simply put a sign up.

[Junkie Brewster]

54. And discriminating against people of color is an action that also directly affects other people

Rand Paul equated "forcing" a restaurant to serve people of color with "forcing" a restaurant to serve people who are armed. This is complete bullshit because a person can choose whether or not to be armed, but a person can't choose whether or not to be black (or Jewish, or female, or any other immutable trait). Rand Paul also seem to try to equate discrimination with freedom of association, an argument straight out of the segregated south, but Rachel kept on him about his feelings of the Civil Rights Act. In Rand Paul world, outlawing discrmination is an act of big government. Private property owners can deny anyone from carrying a firearm on their property, however, they can't deny anyone from being on their property simply due to the color of their skin.

[Statistical]

56. Rand Paul is an idiot and a wingnut. I expect nothing less.

however just he is wrong doesn't mean you are right.

"because a person can choose whether or not to be armed" Back to the choosing canard.

A person shouldn't have to "choose" not to be armed because the govt prohibits firearms at a restaurant.
If the restaurant owner wants to prohibit firearms I am fine with that. There is no reason for the govt to make such a blanket restriction on rights.

[Junkie Brewster]

58. Your post proves my point

You are okay with a restaurant that wants to prohibit firearms. Are you okay with a restaurant that wants to refuse service to black people? I presume not. Federal law prohibits restaurants, and other businesses from refusing service to people based on color (as well as other traits). Some states and local government prohibit people from carrying firearms into restaurants and other businesses. However, the fact of the matter is that being black is not the same thing as having a gun. A gun owner can choose not to carry his or her gun into an establishment that prohibits guns and still get service. A black person can't simply stop being black. These are two very different traits and equating them is specious at best.

[K8-EEE]

73. Do you have a right to bring a bomb into a restaurant?

Isn't that also being "armed?" What if you aren't going to blow it off at least not on purpose. Could you bring a little mini nuke on a plane? Why not? What if somebody ELSE did. Then you would be at a disadvantage! Oh noes!

The beautiful thing is that the Freepers and other Rand Paul nuts are pissed off over his insinuation that restaurant patrons have no right to bring guns into the restaurant if the owner doesn't want them there. It's all good! hahaha!

[dmallind]

38. Really? Good, but a bit disingenuous

Considering you posted this....


"Some people, especially teabaggers, think black people are like guns In that they believe black people are more likely to engage in violence".

Now unless you somehow are saying that Teabaggers are anti-gun (which is a rather strange suggestion as gun rights figure quite prominently at their events) then whose opinion is it that (people with) guns are more likely to engage in violence if not yours?

[Junkie Brewster]

45. Guns are designed to be shot

The first thing I learned when I first learned how to shoot was not to aim at anything or anyone I didn't want to see destroyed. A gun is designed to kill or maim or injure something, and a gun, more than most other objects, is more likely to be involved in an act of violence. I think some people, particularly teabaggers, equate being black, esepcially being black and male, with being more likely to be inovled in an act of violence.

[dmallind]

55. And knives are designed to cut. Doesn't make a guy w/either more likely to shoot/cut innocents. NT

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

7. I think that private property owners have every right to refuse service to people with guns

or any other mutable charactaristic.
Although, it's a pretty silly supposition that having a "no guns" sign on your offers any protection whatsoever.

I say this as a person who DOES have a CCW and carries a 9mm or .380 every day.

[RoccoR5955]

12. His dad's a bigot, it's no wonder that this spans the generations

in his family. Now that as a gun-toter, he feels that he's a minority, too bad. You are NOT born with a gun. The argument falls flat right there. The color of your skin doesn't pose any threat to your personal safety, like a gun does.
Rand, get off of it, and get a grip.

[charlesg]

37. His dad must have made a fortune off Medicaid

He was the only OB/GYN around for miles.

[GoneOffShore]

13. Ayn Rand Paul - his new nickname. Just a stupid libertarian.

Oh, wait - You can be stupid and not be a libertarian. You can't be a libertarian without being stupid.

[conscious evolution]

49. When his name first started popping up

I thought it was a play on words linking ron with ayn rand.

[Javaman]

17. Yeah, I noticed that half-witted argument.

nothing worse then a racist hiding behind moronic justifications for his hatred.

the guy is a racist of the highest order.

There are the in your face racist.

there are the closeted races.

there are the klan racists

there are the "some of my best friends are african american" racist.

But then there is paul.

he is the, "look, I believe in equal rights for everyone, but individuals should have the right to violate peoples civil rights because I WANT GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY LIFE" type racist.

he uses the half assed belief of, "I am not racist, but the government forces me to be so".

he is the most insidious type of racist out there. he's the virus that creeps in at night and infects your whole neighborhood with vile disease.

[Junkie Brewster]

19. Josh Marshall, of TPM has a good take on this

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/05/just_libertarianism_1.php#more?ref=fpblg

Then there is the simple matter of priorities. To a degree the argument Paul is making is something like saying that I don't like rape or murder, I just don't believe in a police force to prevent it or a judiciary to punish the offenders. The reason we, albeit imperfectly, have equality before the law and in the society at large (in terms of public accommodations and so forth) on racial grounds in the whole of the United States is because of federal legislation that forced that to be the case. The reason we don't have white and colored drinking fountains or pools for whites only, etc. You can say you think all those things are awful and you may be telling the truth. But what are you going to do about it? The variant of libertarianism which Paul espouses, while internally consistent in theory and separate from race, has you saying, I wouldn't do anything about it -- though I'd decry it as an individual.

[Sparkly]

25. That's right.

I'd like someone to ask him how he thinks that last 60 years would have played out, and where the country would be today, if there were no recourse in the law for civil rights and de-segregation?

He said it would be a "bad business decision" (or similar wording) for a business to exclude minorities. Even that ridiculous remark may hold true in most of the country NOW, but what about during Jim Crow? Without the Big Government stepping in, would business have corrected such an evil?

He's a naive and silly man.

[Junkie Brewster]

28. I also love his assertation that companies should be trusted not to discriminate against the disable

He threw out a hypothetical situation in which a business shouldn't have to install an elevator just because they have an employee who is in a wheelchair. Just give them an office on the ground floor. What if there is no open office on the ground floor? Or what if the conference rooms and the break rooms and the boss's office and everyone else are on the second floor? Wouldn't it just be simpler to not hire someone in a wheelchair?

[PSzymeczek]

72. In my last job,

all the offices and the conference room were on the ground floor. However, the organization built a training room, where mandatory training took place several times a year (It was a government agency). This training room was on the second floor, accessible only by a flight of stairs.

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. You have obviously not spent much time in the gun forum

where possession of a firearm IS an immutable characteristic.

[aikoaiko]

24. Rand was NOT arguing for elevating gun carriers protection akin to race or minority protections.

He is NOT for forcing restaurants to serve armed folks

He is against legislative (gov) requires that restaurants (private entities) serve people of color.

He is NOT a proposing new gun rights laws.

[Junkie Brewster]

27. That certainly wasn't clear from his appearance on Rachel Maddow last night

Rand Paul asserted that people who want to require businesses to serve people regardless of color, gender, etc. should be prepared to require businesses to allow people to carry guns into their businesses. He is trying to find some kind of common ground for a very ugly argument- if a person doesn't want the business of people of color, they should be allowed to refuse that business just as businesses who don't want guns on the premises are allowed to refuse the business of those who are armed.

[aikoaiko]

41. Its sometimes hard to catch the nuance on live tv but if you watch it again.

Rand is trying to make the case that private people or establishments should be able to treat who they based on race the same way they are allowed to treat someone who carries a gun.

I just rewatched the RM show segment (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/). Advance to the 14:00. He used the gun rights analogy in an attempt to argue against protecting the rights of people of color, religion, etc in private establishments. Not the other way around.


eta: In other words, he thinks the gun carriers analogy will cause Rachel to "see the light" and not support forcing private establishments to serve all people of color, religion, etc. Of course it is a very weak analogy and doesn't convince anyone.

[Sparkly]

30. He equated the two.

His argument is that if the law prohibits businesses from discriminating against people on the basis of race, then we would HAVE to accept that the government can/should prohibit businesses from barring guns on their property.

People = Guns.
Guns = People.

"Well sir, the gun came in and ordered a cup of coffee, and I told it we don't serve guns here."

It's a false comparison.

[Junkie Brewster]

35. I can't get over this one

I am a gun owner. Even when I'm without my gun, as I am now, I am a gun owner, the same as I am a car owner and a Whirlpool washing machine owner and a dog owner. But I don't bring my gun to the Waffle House or my dog or my washing machine, and my car stays outside. But I can't stop being a woman and I can't stop being Hispanic, no matter how inconvenient some people might find it.

[aikoaiko]

42. It is a very weak analogy I agree.

I just rewatched the RM show segment (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/). Advance to the 14:00. He used the gun rights analogy in an attempt to argue against protecting the rights of people of color, religion, etc in private establishments. Not the other way around.

[Statistical]

29. Nobody anywhere in any state is proposing FORCING restaurant to allow guns.

They are simply for removing state RESTRICTION on guns in restaurants (or other locations).

For example in VA the state RESTRICTION on guns in restaurants has been lifted however restaurant (or any private property) can make the individual decision to prohibit firearms at that location.

Of course the "no guns" sign will only be followed by law abiding so is essentially useless but it is the private property owners right.

Nice job in creating a strawman of the issue though.

[aikoaiko]

43. And Rand Paul isn't either.

He used the gun rights analogy in an attempt to argue against protecting the rights of people of color, religion, etc in private establishments. Not the other way around.

[Javaman]

31. the other thing I noticed about paul...

it how fast he was trying to dance around the issue at first, until Rachel started nailing him down.

Then his "message" began to evolve. it began to dawn oh him half way through that he was in very deep shit.

He then tried his best political gymnastics to wheedle his way out of the issue, but Rachel would have none of that. She kept bringing him back in to answer to his accusations on civil rights.

by the end, he realized that she actually asks important questions and expects people to answer them and not give him a pass.

I think even he began to realize that his brand of stupidity won't fly and he kept stepping closer and closer to basically completely flip flopping, but he never quite did it, and chose instead to stick to his racist guns.

stubborn racist jerks are like that, even when they are fully aware that their position is completely untenable.

I seriously doubt we will see jackass paul back on Rachel again anytime in the future.

However, we will see bland paul go crying to faux news to "explain" himself.

[Hubert Flottz]

32. That guy is so stupid that he thought racial equality had...

something to do with restrictor plates and NASCAR...

[Javaman]

34. he's the classic example of the uninformed trying to persuade the informed.

all they have is what they pull out of their asses.

[Hubert Flottz]

39. Right...

Stinky Gerbils!

[Javaman]

44. ...

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

40. "Happy n word day" -- from Amy's report on this today:

'Last year his communications director, Christopher Hightower, resigned after his MySpace page was found to have a post declaring "Happy N-Word Day" and showing a photo of a lynching around the time of the federal Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday."

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/20/headlines#14

[PavePusher]

46. Ah. Constitutional Rights are all of different worth and power.

How very Progressive of you.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

50. Did you cry too much when the Civil Rights act passed?

Or did you just go shoot something to let out steam? Bigot.

[PavePusher]

59. "J'accuse...!"

But sorely miss-used here. Nice try.

I endorse ALL Civil RIghts, even when people use them in distasteful ways.

And that is all Mr. Paul seems to be doing.

If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it, and I will offer my apologies.

[Decoy of Fenris]

57. Hmm...

I don't know much about Rand Paul, to be honest, so I can't say how much of an idiot he is. Given this statement, and being a gun owner myself, I kind of want to slap him.

As has been said prior, the right to firearm possession (in reality an expanded privilege) is not something that can be compared to a basic, unchangeable truth; that blacks are, in fact, people. Attempting to compare the right to own a gun with the right for equal and fair treatment is beyond folly, and does nothing but make gun enthusiasts look like idiots.


As an unrelated aside, I've lurked here for years, and have never once seen a post involving guns NOT devolve into a flingfest of accusations, "What if"s, et cetera. Can someone explain to me why, as a general rule, every single thread that has the word "gun" in it turns into an argument thinly veiled as constructive debate, generally involving the exact same people every single time? More importantly, why can't these (presumably like-minded) Democrats reach a middle-ground of sorts, instead of devoting a fair bit of their energy to arguing?

Any insight would be greatly appreciated, and thank you for indulging in my perplexed curiosity.

ON EDIT: Kick and rec for "Rampant Idiocy" exposure on the part of Paul.

[Junkie Brewster]

60. I got nothing

I grew up with guns, and I'm a gun owner now, though I don't carry one around with me. It absolutely blows me away that anyone would equate gun possession (we're not even talking about ownership, just having one on you) with race or ethnicity.

[Statistical]

61. "the right to firearm possession (in reality an expanded privilege)"

Care to explain that?

So Held: The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's 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. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed. - Heller v. District of Columbia

[Decoy of Fenris]

62. Sure thing, mate.

This is probably a disconnect in my use of the term "Right". I, personally, tend to see things that are commonly referred to as "rights" by rule of law as privileges. When I am born, society (The Bill of Rights, in this instance) bestows upon me several universal things; The right to bear arms, free speech, et cetera. The standard Bill of Rights. However, in my personal mindset, it is best to analyze these things from a rather objective standpoint; If you are born with something, you have a right not to have it denied. In this regard, things such as "speech" (which is granted by virtue of birth) are set in stone; no one can stop me from speaking. They may punish me for what I speak, but aside from physical restraint and gagging, they cannot stop me from the act of speaking. In this light, the Bill of Rights grants me a certain degree of protection, allowing me to speak, for the most part, as I see fit. This is a categorical "Right": I am not "allowed" to speak, but have the capacity and right to do so by the very virtue of being alive. Attempting to stop me from doing so would be a violation of a characteristic of living, in my eyes.

The right to bear arms, or in this case (using my own phrasing), the expanded privilege to bear arms, protects me from governmental interference in my use of firearms, so long as I do not violate other laws. Using your own quote, "to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes", I believe that it is established that this is not a RIGHT. A right is something that cannot be denied. However, if I were to unlawfully fire upon and wound or kill another human, that right is immediately stripped by societal law. This is a highly conditional "Right", and in my eyes, a "Right" is something that cannot be stripped from a person. It is something so basic and so fundamental that to deny one the "right" in question would be an affront to their life or continued survival.

To elaborate, in the time of the Founders, a firearm was something of almost vital necessity for a large part of the nation. Be it for hunting, defense against border conflict by American Indians, et cetera, the rifle was a staple of American society (for the most part), and as such, was a fundamental right given the nature of society at the time. In recent times, armaments have become comparatively obsolete, being that aside from recreation and self-defense, a significantly slimmer margin of people have the -need- to possess a weapon. Their livelihoods do not depend on it.

With this in mind, possession and lawful ownership of a weapon ceases to be a "Right", and instead is something more akin to a privilege, similar to owning a car. Likewise, as all privileges, this is one that can be stripped under correct circumstances, namely improper or irresponsible use (i.e., running over an old lady, or shooting out someone's kneecaps.)

I will cede to the point that this is an opinion, and for me to include that in my previous post was unwarranted and rather misplaced, all things considered. For that, I apologize.

I hope I've made myself clear, or failing that, at least understood.

[Statistical]

63. Wow so much wrong there but lets start with this...

"society (The Bill of Rights, in this instance) bestows upon me several universal things"

The Bill of Rights does no such thing. The Bill of Rights grants no rights (or privileges).
Your entire premise is based on this faulty logic and like a math student who feels that 1 +2 =3 everything built from that is false.

Rights exist. They always have and always will. They are inalienable, and derived not from governments but from our Creator. For the non-religious you could say they are human rights. Our government gains legitimacy from the govern. It is obligated to protect the rights of the people or it is illegitimate. Sometimes governments choose to violate rights without due process. We call that tyranny. The founding fathers would say that today Chinese citizens have right to free speech or to petition their government however the Chinese government infringes upon those rights making it tyranical.


However, if I were to unlawfully fire upon and wound or kill another human
Once again missing a key point. If you kill someone your right to keep and bear arms is not immediately suppressed. It is only done so via due process. If the state fails to convict you they have no legal authority to deny you your Constitutional rights (including those to keep & bear arms). When you are convicted of a crime your right to keep and bear arms still exists however citizens have granted the government to supress those rights in a limited basis and only via due process. That is the difference between tyranny and lawful suppression of rights. However even when the government moves to suppress rights via due process it is obligated to do so only where necessary and only to the extent requires. We call this principle "strict scrutiny".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

The bill of rights is a legal document designed to PROTECT RIGHTS. Given our nation is a nation with rule of law the Constitutional protections make it difficult (but not impossible) for our government to accomplish the kind of abuses that the Chinese government can with little effort.

If you believe the Constitution grants rights then you are a subject not a citizen and you have no rights at all only privileges which can be taken away at the whim of the state.

[Decoy of Fenris]

64. Your points hold validity, and your text formatting is wonderful. :P

See, I think part of the disconnect that we're having here is that I tend to view the world in a rather abstract manner oftentimes considered "Wrong" by "Civilized" folk.

I will grant and accept that "rights exist" to a certain extent. Likewise, I fully agree that "Rights" can be suppressed by law, and I thank you for enlightening me on that key point of difference regarding suppression, as that is a vital distinction.

Perhaps, to better aid my comprehension of the discussion at hand, can I ask what you consider to be a "Right"? Perhaps that is where the disconnect currently lies.

[Statistical]

65. Welcome to DU and that is the real question.

We know some of the rights. They are enumerated in the Constitution. The right to practice religion, the right to a press free of government control, the right to keep and bear arms. However the founding fathers never intended the Bill of Rights to be a list of rights but rather just a sample of some they felt the most important. We have many "unenumerated rights" however the Constitution makes that point rather vague:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

- Ninth Amendment of United States Constitution.

There actually was some debate among the founding fathers on even HAVING a Bill of Rights as they feared it would defacto give too much power to the government over any right that isn't enumerated.

It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.

What exactly is the complete list of unenumerated rights well that is not something I can answer. It would be up to the whole body of the governed. Our system being imperfect (as all Democracies are) we would rely on the Supreme Court to ensure unenumerated rights are not infringed.

One example would be the right to privacy (and indirectly the right of a women to choose). Sadly our court has taken a very restrictive view on the ninth throughout history and even as a result the "privileges and immunities" clause.

[Decoy of Fenris]

66. Thanks mate, and aye, it is.

However, I think that I made my question misunderstood. What I mean is, how do you (personally) separate the difference between "Privilege" and "Right"? For instance, do you rely on the Bill of Rights to dictate to you what a "Right" is, do you have your own views, or something else?

I believe I'm attempting to understand you as much as I'm attempting to understand your argument, at this point. :P

[PavePusher]

69. This:

"the right to firearm possession (in reality an expanded privilege)"

...is quite telling about your understanding of a Constitutionally protected Right.

And it's not telling a good tale.


On edit: My apologies, I should have read your entire exchange after that statement. I'll leave this up as a monument to my being too hasty. Mea Culpa.

[RoccoR5955]

67. And now the bass turd is backpedaling!

The little rat is saying that it's a media plot. He may be an opthamologist, but his life vision is quite near sighted.

[WolverineDG]

68. It's an amazing sight, you must admit

to watch a man backpedal so fiercely after shooting himself in both feet.

dg

[Kievan Rus]

70. Agreed 100000%

You can leave your gun at home. You can't leave your skin color at home.

Modern racists know they can't be open about it anymore. Even David Duke knows this.