Discussion:
Appeals court blocks DC's concealed-carry law on Second Amendment grounds
(too old to reply)
Leroy N. Soetoro
2017-07-26 08:07:41 UTC
Permalink
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/25/appeals-court-blocks-dcs-concealed-
carry-law-on-second-amendment-grounds.html

A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a District of Columbia gun-
control measure that the court said is essentially an outright ban in
violation of the Second Amendment.

D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to obtain a concealed
carry permit.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the regulation
as too restrictive in a 2-1 decision, The Washington Post reported.

“The good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on most D.C. residents’
right to carry a gun in the face of ordinary self-defense needs,” Judge
Thomas B. Griffith wrote, according to the paper.

“Bans on the ability of most citizens to exercise an enumerated right
would have to flunk any judicial test.”

Judge Stephen F. Williams joined Griffith in the decision.

The decision deals another legal blow to efforts by city officials to
rewrite gun regulations since the Supreme Court declared a Second
Amendment right to gun ownership in a 2008 D.C. gun case, the paper
reported.

John R. Lott, Jr. of the Crime Prevention Research Center called the
decision huge.

Right now, there are about 124 concealed handgun permit holders in D.C.,
Lott told Fox News. “If D.C. were like the 42 right-to-carry states, they
would have about 48,000 permits. Right now D.C. prevents the most
vulnerable people, particularly poor blacks who live in high crime areas
of D.C., from having any hope of getting a permit for protection.

The lone dissenter, Judge Karen Henderson, said the district’s regulation
“passes muster” because of the city’s unique security challenges as the
nation’s capital and because it does not affect the right to keep a
firearm at home.

Gun rights groups and Republican attorneys general from more than a dozen
states told the court that the District’s system is unconstitutional
because the typical law-abiding citizen could not obtain a permit, the
paper reported.

City officials could ask all the judges on the circuit to rule on the
matter, if they elect to appeal the decision.
--
Donald J. Trump, 304 electoral votes to 227, defeated compulsive liar in
denial Hillary Rodham Clinton on December 19th, 2016. The clown car
parade of the democrat party has run out of gas.

Congratulations President Trump. Thank you for ending the disaster of the
Obama presidency.

Under Barack Obama's leadership, the United States of America became the
The World According To Garp.

ObamaCare is a total 100% failure and no lie that can be put forth by its
supporters can dispute that.

Obama jobs, the result of ObamaCare. 12-15 working hours a week at minimum
wage, no benefits and the primary revenue stream for ObamaCare. It can't
be funded with money people don't have, yet liberals lie about how great
it is.

Obama increased total debt from $10 trillion to $20 trillion in the eight
years he was in office, and sold out heterosexuals for Hollywood queer
liberal democrat donors.
Peter Franks
2017-07-26 16:50:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/25/appeals-court-blocks-dcs-concealed-
carry-law-on-second-amendment-grounds.html
A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a District of Columbia gun-
control measure that the court said is essentially an outright ban in
violation of the Second Amendment.
D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to obtain a concealed
carry permit.
...
Anyone know what the justification for the "good reason" law is?
Michael Ejercito
2017-07-26 17:46:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/25/appeals-court-blocks-dcs-concealed-
carry-law-on-second-amendment-grounds.html
A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a District of Columbia gun-
control measure that the court said is essentially an outright ban in
violation of the Second Amendment.
D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to obtain a concealed
carry permit.
...
Anyone know what the justification for the "good reason" law is?
Should we not be required to provide a good reason to exercise out
rights.

Remember that states banned same-sex marriage without allowing couples to
provide a good reason. But if they were to restrict same-sex marriage to
those who can prove that they have a good reason....



Michael
Wayne
2017-07-26 17:45:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/25/appeals-court-blocks-dcs-concealed-
carry-law-on-second-amendment-grounds.html
A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a District of Columbia gun-
control measure that the court said is essentially an outright ban in
violation of the Second Amendment.
D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to obtain a concealed
carry permit.
...
Anyone know what the justification for the "good reason" law is?
Yes. The "good reason" is so the issuing authority can deny your
request. Jurisdictions such as San Diego, LA, San Francisco will always
say that your "good reason" isn't a good reason.
bigdog
2017-07-26 18:07:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wayne
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/25/appeals-court-blocks-dcs-concealed-
carry-law-on-second-amendment-grounds.html
A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a District of Columbia gun-
control measure that the court said is essentially an outright ban in
violation of the Second Amendment.
D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to obtain a concealed
carry permit.
...
Anyone know what the justification for the "good reason" law is?
Yes. The "good reason" is so the issuing authority can deny your
request. Jurisdictions such as San Diego, LA, San Francisco will always
say that your "good reason" isn't a good reason.
Of course those issuing authorities arm themselves. Fuck everybody else.
benj
2017-07-27 00:13:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by Wayne
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/25/appeals-court-blocks-dcs-concealed-
carry-law-on-second-amendment-grounds.html
A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a District of Columbia gun-
control measure that the court said is essentially an outright ban in
violation of the Second Amendment.
D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to obtain a concealed
carry permit.
...
Anyone know what the justification for the "good reason" law is?
Yes. The "good reason" is so the issuing authority can deny your
request. Jurisdictions such as San Diego, LA, San Francisco will always
say that your "good reason" isn't a good reason.
Of course those issuing authorities arm themselves. Fuck everybody else.
Ever notice that all those who want to eliminate violence by "getting
guns off the street" never want to take all guns off the street, just
those not in the hands of Government authorities. As "handgun control"
used to say, it's all about getting guns out of the "wrong" hands.
Peter Franks
2017-07-27 18:53:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wayne
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/25/appeals-court-blocks-dcs-concealed-
carry-law-on-second-amendment-grounds.html
A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a District of Columbia gun-
control measure that the court said is essentially an outright ban in
violation of the Second Amendment.
D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to obtain a concealed
carry permit.
...
Anyone know what the justification for the "good reason" law is?
Yes. The "good reason" is so the issuing authority can deny your
request.
Is the authority to 'deny your request' delegated to government?
Post by Wayne
Jurisdictions such as San Diego, LA, San Francisco will always
say that your "good reason" isn't a good reason.
Scout
2017-07-28 00:06:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Wayne
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/25/appeals-court-blocks-dcs-concealed-
carry-law-on-second-amendment-grounds.html
A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a District of Columbia gun-
control measure that the court said is essentially an outright ban in
violation of the Second Amendment.
D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to obtain a concealed
carry permit.
...
Anyone know what the justification for the "good reason" law is?
Yes. The "good reason" is so the issuing authority can deny your
request.
Is the authority to 'deny your request' delegated to government?
Well, the moment you have to request....then they can clearly have a choice
to deny such a request.

One reason why our arms and our right to carry them should not be within the
preview of the government under normal circumstances.
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Wayne
Jurisdictions such as San Diego, LA, San Francisco will always say that
your "good reason" isn't a good reason.
Peter Franks
2017-07-30 04:12:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Wayne
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/25/appeals-court-blocks-dcs-concealed-
carry-law-on-second-amendment-grounds.html
A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a District of Columbia gun-
control measure that the court said is essentially an outright ban in
violation of the Second Amendment.
D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to obtain a concealed
carry permit.
...
Anyone know what the justification for the "good reason" law is?
Yes. The "good reason" is so the issuing authority can deny your
request.
Is the authority to 'deny your request' delegated to government?
Well, the moment you have to request....then they can clearly have a
choice to deny such a request.
One reason why our arms and our right to carry them should not be within
the preview of the government under normal circumstances.
It's never within the purview of a just government.

You either have a government that secures and protect rights, or you
don't. The latter is totalitarianism. Period.
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Wayne
Jurisdictions such as San Diego, LA, San Francisco will always say
that your "good reason" isn't a good reason.
Scout
2017-07-30 04:42:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Wayne
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/25/appeals-court-blocks-dcs-concealed-
carry-law-on-second-amendment-grounds.html
A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a District of Columbia gun-
control measure that the court said is essentially an outright ban in
violation of the Second Amendment.
D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to obtain a concealed
carry permit.
...
Anyone know what the justification for the "good reason" law is?
Yes. The "good reason" is so the issuing authority can deny your
request.
Is the authority to 'deny your request' delegated to government?
Well, the moment you have to request....then they can clearly have a
choice to deny such a request.
One reason why our arms and our right to carry them should not be within
the preview of the government under normal circumstances.
It's never within the purview of a just government.
So you think prison inmates should be able to have guns?
Post by Peter Franks
You either have a government that secures and protect rights, or you
don't. The latter is totalitarianism. Period.
Then I guess we are the later....and always have been. After all, we allow
the government to EXECUTE people thus denying them of their right to life.

Frankly, I don't think it's quite as cut n' dried as you make it out to be,
but IN GENERAL, with the exception of criminals you have a pretty reasonable
point. But again, it's not black and white given the exception I've noted.
Peter Franks
2017-08-18 19:48:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Wayne
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/25/appeals-court-blocks-dcs-concealed-
carry-law-on-second-amendment-grounds.html
A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a District of Columbia gun-
control measure that the court said is essentially an outright ban in
violation of the Second Amendment.
D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to obtain a concealed
carry permit.
...
Anyone know what the justification for the "good reason" law is?
Yes. The "good reason" is so the issuing authority can deny your
request.
Is the authority to 'deny your request' delegated to government?
Well, the moment you have to request....then they can clearly have a
choice to deny such a request.
One reason why our arms and our right to carry them should not be
within the preview of the government under normal circumstances.
It's never within the purview of a just government.
So you think prison inmates should be able to have guns?
Criminals (convicted felons) have forfeit their rights. An inmate has
no claim to a right to keep and bear arms.
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
You either have a government that secures and protect rights, or you
don't. The latter is totalitarianism. Period.
Then I guess we are the later....and always have been. After all, we
allow the government to EXECUTE people thus denying them of their right
to life.
No.

They affect the forfeiture of the right to life. A criminal, through
his action, has forfeit his right to life. The state executes that
sentence, figurative and literally.
Post by Scout
Frankly, I don't think it's quite as cut n' dried as you make it out to
be, but IN GENERAL, with the exception of criminals you have a pretty
reasonable point. But again, it's not black and white given the
exception I've noted.
Oh, it is cut and dried, black and white. And quite simple.

We are born with (natural) rights. NO PERSON, group, or otherwise can
arbitrarily take away those rights. The only way that a right can be
lost (forfeit) is if a person willingly and maliciously violates the
rights of another (criminal, inmate in your parlance).

Just governments are instituted to secure (protect) rights. A
government that violates the rights of the citizens is unjust and by
definition, a totalitarian government.
Scout
2017-08-19 01:26:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Wayne
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/25/appeals-court-blocks-dcs-concealed-
carry-law-on-second-amendment-grounds.html
A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a District of Columbia gun-
control measure that the court said is essentially an outright ban in
violation of the Second Amendment.
D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to obtain a concealed
carry permit.
...
Anyone know what the justification for the "good reason" law is?
Yes. The "good reason" is so the issuing authority can deny your
request.
Is the authority to 'deny your request' delegated to government?
Well, the moment you have to request....then they can clearly have a
choice to deny such a request.
One reason why our arms and our right to carry them should not be
within the preview of the government under normal circumstances.
It's never within the purview of a just government.
So you think prison inmates should be able to have guns?
Criminals (convicted felons) have forfeit their rights.
thus it is within the preview of government.

Point, set and Match
Peter Franks
2017-09-11 21:07:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Wayne
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/25/appeals-court-blocks-dcs-concealed-
carry-law-on-second-amendment-grounds.html
A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a District of Columbia gun-
control measure that the court said is essentially an outright ban in
violation of the Second Amendment.
D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to obtain a concealed
carry permit.
...
Anyone know what the justification for the "good reason" law is?
Yes. The "good reason" is so the issuing authority can deny your
request.
Is the authority to 'deny your request' delegated to government?
Well, the moment you have to request....then they can clearly have
a choice to deny such a request.
One reason why our arms and our right to carry them should not be
within the preview of the government under normal circumstances.
It's never within the purview of a just government.
So you think prison inmates should be able to have guns?
Criminals (convicted felons) have forfeit their rights.
thus it is within the preview of government.
That doesn't even make sense.
Scout
2017-09-11 23:07:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Wayne
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/25/appeals-court-blocks-dcs-concealed-
carry-law-on-second-amendment-grounds.html
A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a District of
Columbia gun-
control measure that the court said is essentially an outright ban in
violation of the Second Amendment.
D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to obtain a
concealed
carry permit.
...
Anyone know what the justification for the "good reason" law is?
Yes. The "good reason" is so the issuing authority can deny your
request.
Is the authority to 'deny your request' delegated to government?
Well, the moment you have to request....then they can clearly have a
choice to deny such a request.
One reason why our arms and our right to carry them should not be
within the preview of the government under normal circumstances.
It's never within the purview of a just government.
So you think prison inmates should be able to have guns?
Criminals (convicted felons) have forfeit their rights.
thus it is within the preview of government.
That doesn't even make sense.
I suppose simple linear logic is beyond your capacity.....

Scout
2017-07-26 22:33:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/25/appeals-court-blocks-dcs-concealed-
carry-law-on-second-amendment-grounds.html
A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a District of Columbia gun-
control measure that the court said is essentially an outright ban in
violation of the Second Amendment.
D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to obtain a concealed
carry permit.
...
Anyone know what the justification for the "good reason" law is?
to restrain the ability of people to protect themselves.

Note, it's interesting to note that regularly carrying lots of money is a
'good reason', but regularly being out and about with your family, isn't.

Seems property is worth protecting, but lives aren't, at least for those
opposed to self defense.
Peter Franks
2017-07-27 18:52:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/25/appeals-court-blocks-dcs-concealed-
carry-law-on-second-amendment-grounds.html
A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a District of Columbia gun-
control measure that the court said is essentially an outright ban in
violation of the Second Amendment.
D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to obtain a concealed
carry permit.
...
Anyone know what the justification for the "good reason" law is?
to restrain the ability of people to protect themselves.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but has the authority to restrain law abiding
people been delegated to government?

Can it even /be/ delegated... ?
Post by Scout
Note, it's interesting to note that regularly carrying lots of money is
a 'good reason', but regularly being out and about with your family, isn't.
Seems property is worth protecting, but lives aren't, at least for those
opposed to self defense.
I guess we can turn to the bean counters. Isn't human life typically
valued at $1M? So it stands that if you are out with your family, you
are in possession of $4-5M.

How much $$ in an armored truck? Couldn't find an average answer, but
seems like cash is less and less in a digital/check age, someone
reported that it is $500K or so, on average.

The truck probably costs <$1M, and is insured, and unless bombed or
stolen (and kept), isn't a loss.

So, 'lots of money' translates into $2M for the drivers, $1M for the
truck, $1M in loot, or a total of $4M.

So if trucks get 2 armed guards for $4M of value, you are fully
qualified for a "good reason" w/ your $5M family and 1 gun.
Scout
2017-07-28 00:03:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/25/appeals-court-blocks-dcs-concealed-
carry-law-on-second-amendment-grounds.html
A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a District of Columbia gun-
control measure that the court said is essentially an outright ban in
violation of the Second Amendment.
D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to obtain a concealed
carry permit.
...
Anyone know what the justification for the "good reason" law is?
to restrain the ability of people to protect themselves.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but has the authority to restrain law abiding
people been delegated to government?
You asked for the justification, you didn't ask if that power was delegated
to the government.

I can only answer what you ask, and I'm not going to try and predict what
you're going to ask next.
Post by Peter Franks
Can it even /be/ delegated... ?
We can delegate pretty much any power to the government...
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Scout
Note, it's interesting to note that regularly carrying lots of money is a
'good reason', but regularly being out and about with your family, isn't.
Seems property is worth protecting, but lives aren't, at least for those
opposed to self defense.
I guess we can turn to the bean counters. Isn't human life typically
valued at $1M? So it stands that if you are out with your family, you are
in possession of $4-5M.
Except it doesn't work that ways since you're not seen as property
(thankfully).
Post by Peter Franks
How much $$ in an armored truck? Couldn't find an average answer, but
seems like cash is less and less in a digital/check age, someone reported
that it is $500K or so, on average.
The truck probably costs <$1M, and is insured, and unless bombed or stolen
(and kept), isn't a loss.
So, 'lots of money' translates into $2M for the drivers, $1M for the
truck, $1M in loot, or a total of $4M.
So if trucks get 2 armed guards for $4M of value, you are fully qualified
for a "good reason" w/ your $5M family and 1 gun.
Except that you assume your lives are valued by the politicians.
Just Wondering
2017-07-28 00:36:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/25/appeals-court-blocks-dcs-concealed-
carry-law-on-second-amendment-grounds.html
A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a District of Columbia gun-
control measure that the court said is essentially an outright ban in
violation of the Second Amendment.
D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to obtain a concealed
carry permit.
...
Anyone know what the justification for the "good reason" law is?
to restrain the ability of people to protect themselves.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but has the authority to restrain law abiding
people been delegated to government?
You asked for the justification, you didn't ask if that power was
delegated to the government.
I can only answer what you ask, and I'm not going to try and predict
what you're going to ask next.
Post by Peter Franks
Can it even /be/ delegated... ?
We can delegate pretty much any power to the government...
You can't delegate the power to infringe on fundamental rights.
Scout
2017-07-28 03:41:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/25/appeals-court-blocks-dcs-concealed-
carry-law-on-second-amendment-grounds.html
A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a District of Columbia gun-
control measure that the court said is essentially an outright ban in
violation of the Second Amendment.
D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to obtain a concealed
carry permit.
...
Anyone know what the justification for the "good reason" law is?
to restrain the ability of people to protect themselves.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but has the authority to restrain law abiding
people been delegated to government?
You asked for the justification, you didn't ask if that power was
delegated to the government.
I can only answer what you ask, and I'm not going to try and predict what
you're going to ask next.
Post by Peter Franks
Can it even /be/ delegated... ?
We can delegate pretty much any power to the government...
You can't delegate the power to infringe on fundamental rights.
5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

And just to insure that wasn't a mistake

13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Both Amendments allow for the infringement of fundamental rights.
Just Wondering
2017-07-28 06:08:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/25/appeals-court-blocks-dcs-concealed-
carry-law-on-second-amendment-grounds.html
A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a District of Columbia gun-
control measure that the court said is essentially an outright ban in
violation of the Second Amendment.
D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to obtain a concealed
carry permit.
...
Anyone know what the justification for the "good reason" law is?
to restrain the ability of people to protect themselves.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but has the authority to restrain law
abiding people been delegated to government?
You asked for the justification, you didn't ask if that power was
delegated to the government.
I can only answer what you ask, and I'm not going to try and predict
what you're going to ask next.
Post by Peter Franks
Can it even /be/ delegated... ?
We can delegate pretty much any power to the government...
You can't delegate the power to infringe on fundamental rights.
5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
And just to insure that wasn't a mistake
13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Both Amendments allow for the infringement of fundamental rights.
That does not appear to be true. Please explain.
Scout
2017-07-28 06:54:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/25/appeals-court-blocks-dcs-concealed-
carry-law-on-second-amendment-grounds.html
A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a District of Columbia gun-
control measure that the court said is essentially an outright ban in
violation of the Second Amendment.
D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to obtain a concealed
carry permit.
...
Anyone know what the justification for the "good reason" law is?
to restrain the ability of people to protect themselves.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but has the authority to restrain law abiding
people been delegated to government?
You asked for the justification, you didn't ask if that power was
delegated to the government.
I can only answer what you ask, and I'm not going to try and predict
what you're going to ask next.
Post by Peter Franks
Can it even /be/ delegated... ?
We can delegate pretty much any power to the government...
You can't delegate the power to infringe on fundamental rights.
5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
And just to insure that wasn't a mistake
13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Both Amendments allow for the infringement of fundamental rights.
That does not appear to be true. Please explain.
5th amendment allows the government to infringe upon your right to life by
executing you.

13th Amendment allows the government to infringe up your right to self
ownership and turn you into property.

Then we can get into all the other rights these amendments would allow the
government to infringe upon so as to punish you for your crime(s).

However, the issue was fundamental rights. I think a right to life and self
ownership can be considered fundamental rights, and we have empowered the
government to infringe upon those rights. Sure, as punishment for a crime by
due process, but the authorization was still given.
Just Wondering
2017-07-28 10:03:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/25/appeals-court-blocks-dcs-concealed-
carry-law-on-second-amendment-grounds.html
A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a District of Columbia gun-
control measure that the court said is essentially an outright ban in
violation of the Second Amendment.
D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to obtain a concealed
carry permit.
...
Anyone know what the justification for the "good reason" law is?
to restrain the ability of people to protect themselves.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but has the authority to restrain law
abiding people been delegated to government?
You asked for the justification, you didn't ask if that power was
delegated to the government.
I can only answer what you ask, and I'm not going to try and
predict what you're going to ask next.
Post by Peter Franks
Can it even /be/ delegated... ?
We can delegate pretty much any power to the government...
You can't delegate the power to infringe on fundamental rights.
5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
And just to insure that wasn't a mistake
13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Both Amendments allow for the infringement of fundamental rights.
That does not appear to be true. Please explain.
5th amendment allows the government to infringe upon your right to life
by executing you.
13th Amendment allows the government to infringe up your right to self
ownership and turn you into property.
Then we can get into all the other rights these amendments would allow
the government to infringe upon so as to punish you for your crime(s).
However, the issue was fundamental rights. I think a right to life and
self ownership can be considered fundamental rights, and we have
empowered the government to infringe upon those rights. Sure, as
punishment for a crime by due process, but the authorization was still
given.
No right is unlimited. If you murder someone you have surrendered your
right to life and no longer have the right. If you are given due
process, are tried, convicted and sentenced to death, and the sentence
is carried out, it doesn't infringe on your right to life because at
that point you no longer HAVE a right to life.
de chucka
2017-07-28 22:52:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/25/appeals-court-blocks-dcs-concealed-
carry-law-on-second-amendment-grounds.html
A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a District of
Columbia gun-
control measure that the court said is essentially an outright ban in
violation of the Second Amendment.
D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to obtain a
concealed
carry permit.
...
Anyone know what the justification for the "good reason" law is?
to restrain the ability of people to protect themselves.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but has the authority to restrain law
abiding people been delegated to government?
You asked for the justification, you didn't ask if that power was
delegated to the government.
I can only answer what you ask, and I'm not going to try and
predict what you're going to ask next.
Post by Peter Franks
Can it even /be/ delegated... ?
We can delegate pretty much any power to the government...
You can't delegate the power to infringe on fundamental rights.
5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
And just to insure that wasn't a mistake
13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Both Amendments allow for the infringement of fundamental rights.
That does not appear to be true. Please explain.
5th amendment allows the government to infringe upon your right to
life by executing you.
13th Amendment allows the government to infringe up your right to self
ownership and turn you into property.
Then we can get into all the other rights these amendments would allow
the government to infringe upon so as to punish you for your crime(s).
However, the issue was fundamental rights. I think a right to life
and self ownership can be considered fundamental rights, and we have
empowered the government to infringe upon those rights. Sure, as
punishment for a crime by due process, but the authorization was still
given.
No right is unlimited. If you murder someone you have surrendered your
right to life and no longer have the right. If you are given due
process, are tried, convicted and sentenced to death, and the sentence
is carried out, it doesn't infringe on your right to life because at
that point you no longer HAVE a right to life.
So why do you lot gone about 2A as if it is sacrosanct ?
Just Wondering
2017-07-29 00:54:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Correct me if I'm wrong, but has the authority to restrain law
abiding people been delegated to government?
You asked for the justification, you didn't ask if that power was
delegated to the government.
I can only answer what you ask, and I'm not going to try and
predict what you're going to ask next.
Post by Peter Franks
Can it even /be/ delegated... ?
We can delegate pretty much any power to the government...
You can't delegate the power to infringe on fundamental rights.
5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
And just to insure that wasn't a mistake
13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Both Amendments allow for the infringement of fundamental rights.
That does not appear to be true. Please explain.
5th amendment allows the government to infringe upon your right to
life by executing you.
13th Amendment allows the government to infringe up your right to self
ownership and turn you into property.
Then we can get into all the other rights these amendments would allow
the government to infringe upon so as to punish you for your crime(s).
However, the issue was fundamental rights. I think a right to life
and self ownership can be considered fundamental rights, and we have
empowered the government to infringe upon those rights. Sure, as
punishment for a crime by due process, but the authorization was still
given.
No right is unlimited. If you murder someone you have surrendered your
right to life and no longer have the right. If you are given due
process, are tried, convicted and sentenced to death, and the sentence
is carried out, it doesn't infringe on your right to life because at
that point you no longer HAVE a right to life.
So why do you lot gone about 2A as if it is sacrosanct ?
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
de chucka
2017-07-29 00:56:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by de chucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Correct me if I'm wrong, but has the authority to restrain law
abiding people been delegated to government?
You asked for the justification, you didn't ask if that power was
delegated to the government.
I can only answer what you ask, and I'm not going to try and
predict what you're going to ask next.
Post by Peter Franks
Can it even /be/ delegated... ?
We can delegate pretty much any power to the government...
You can't delegate the power to infringe on fundamental rights.
5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
And just to insure that wasn't a mistake
13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Both Amendments allow for the infringement of fundamental rights.
That does not appear to be true. Please explain.
5th amendment allows the government to infringe upon your right to
life by executing you.
13th Amendment allows the government to infringe up your right to self
ownership and turn you into property.
Then we can get into all the other rights these amendments would allow
the government to infringe upon so as to punish you for your crime(s).
However, the issue was fundamental rights. I think a right to life
and self ownership can be considered fundamental rights, and we have
empowered the government to infringe upon those rights. Sure, as
punishment for a crime by due process, but the authorization was still
given.
No right is unlimited. If you murder someone you have surrendered your
right to life and no longer have the right. If you are given due
process, are tried, convicted and sentenced to death, and the sentence
is carried out, it doesn't infringe on your right to life because at
that point you no longer HAVE a right to life.
So why do you lot gone about 2A as if it is sacrosanct ?
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Never started and your point is what?
Just Wondering
2017-07-29 01:21:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Correct me if I'm wrong, but has the authority to restrain law
abiding people been delegated to government?
You asked for the justification, you didn't ask if that power was
delegated to the government.
I can only answer what you ask, and I'm not going to try and
predict what you're going to ask next.
Post by Peter Franks
Can it even /be/ delegated... ?
We can delegate pretty much any power to the government...
You can't delegate the power to infringe on fundamental rights.
5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
And just to insure that wasn't a mistake
13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Both Amendments allow for the infringement of fundamental rights.
That does not appear to be true. Please explain.
5th amendment allows the government to infringe upon your right to
life by executing you.
13th Amendment allows the government to infringe up your right to self
ownership and turn you into property.
Then we can get into all the other rights these amendments would allow
the government to infringe upon so as to punish you for your crime(s).
However, the issue was fundamental rights. I think a right to life
and self ownership can be considered fundamental rights, and we have
empowered the government to infringe upon those rights. Sure, as
punishment for a crime by due process, but the authorization was still
given.
No right is unlimited. If you murder someone you have surrendered your
right to life and no longer have the right. If you are given due
process, are tried, convicted and sentenced to death, and the sentence
is carried out, it doesn't infringe on your right to life because at
that point you no longer HAVE a right to life.
So why do you lot gone about 2A as if it is sacrosanct ?
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Never started and your point is what?
Just like you, no one here has gone on about 2A as if it is sacrosanct.
de chucka
2017-07-29 01:24:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Correct me if I'm wrong, but has the authority to restrain law
abiding people been delegated to government?
You asked for the justification, you didn't ask if that power was
delegated to the government.
I can only answer what you ask, and I'm not going to try and
predict what you're going to ask next.
Post by Peter Franks
Can it even /be/ delegated... ?
We can delegate pretty much any power to the government...
You can't delegate the power to infringe on fundamental rights.
5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
And just to insure that wasn't a mistake
13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Both Amendments allow for the infringement of fundamental rights.
That does not appear to be true. Please explain.
5th amendment allows the government to infringe upon your right to
life by executing you.
13th Amendment allows the government to infringe up your right to self
ownership and turn you into property.
Then we can get into all the other rights these amendments would allow
the government to infringe upon so as to punish you for your crime(s).
However, the issue was fundamental rights. I think a right to life
and self ownership can be considered fundamental rights, and we have
empowered the government to infringe upon those rights. Sure, as
punishment for a crime by due process, but the authorization was still
given.
No right is unlimited. If you murder someone you have surrendered your
right to life and no longer have the right. If you are given due
process, are tried, convicted and sentenced to death, and the sentence
is carried out, it doesn't infringe on your right to life because at
that point you no longer HAVE a right to life.
So why do you lot gone about 2A as if it is sacrosanct ?
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Never started and your point is what?
Just like you, no one here has gone on about 2A as if it is sacrosanct.
I've heard it called a god given right in this NG as have you.
Just Wondering
2017-07-29 08:15:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Correct me if I'm wrong, but has the authority to restrain law
abiding people been delegated to government?
You asked for the justification, you didn't ask if that power was
delegated to the government.
I can only answer what you ask, and I'm not going to try and
predict what you're going to ask next.
Post by Peter Franks
Can it even /be/ delegated... ?
We can delegate pretty much any power to the government...
You can't delegate the power to infringe on fundamental rights.
5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
And just to insure that wasn't a mistake
13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Both Amendments allow for the infringement of fundamental rights.
That does not appear to be true. Please explain.
5th amendment allows the government to infringe upon your right to
life by executing you.
13th Amendment allows the government to infringe up your right to
self ownership and turn you into property.
Then we can get into all the other rights these amendments would
allow the government to infringe upon so as to punish you for your
crime(s).
However, the issue was fundamental rights. I think a right to life
and self ownership can be considered fundamental rights, and we have
empowered the government to infringe upon those rights. Sure, as
punishment for a crime by due process, but the authorization was
still given.
No right is unlimited. If you murder someone you have surrendered
your right to life and no longer have the right. If you are given due
process, are tried, convicted and sentenced to death, and the
sentence is carried out, it doesn't infringe on your right to
life because at that point you no longer HAVE a right to life.
So why do you lot gone about 2A as if it is sacrosanct ?
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Never started and your point is what?
Just like you, no one here has gone on about 2A as if it is sacrosanct.
I've heard it called a god given right in this NG as have you.
I've not use the word god in connection with the 2A, but
in any event sacrosanct doesn't mean god-given.
Scout
2017-07-29 04:22:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by de chucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Correct me if I'm wrong, but has the authority to restrain law
abiding people been delegated to government?
You asked for the justification, you didn't ask if that power was
delegated to the government.
I can only answer what you ask, and I'm not going to try and
predict what you're going to ask next.
Post by Peter Franks
Can it even /be/ delegated... ?
We can delegate pretty much any power to the government...
You can't delegate the power to infringe on fundamental rights.
5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
And just to insure that wasn't a mistake
13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Both Amendments allow for the infringement of fundamental rights.
That does not appear to be true. Please explain.
5th amendment allows the government to infringe upon your right to
life by executing you.
13th Amendment allows the government to infringe up your right to self
ownership and turn you into property.
Then we can get into all the other rights these amendments would allow
the government to infringe upon so as to punish you for your crime(s).
However, the issue was fundamental rights. I think a right to life
and self ownership can be considered fundamental rights, and we have
empowered the government to infringe upon those rights. Sure, as
punishment for a crime by due process, but the authorization was still
given.
No right is unlimited. If you murder someone you have surrendered your
right to life and no longer have the right. If you are given due
process, are tried, convicted and sentenced to death, and the sentence
is carried out, it doesn't infringe on your right to life because at
that point you no longer HAVE a right to life.
So why do you lot gone about 2A as if it is sacrosanct ?
What part of "due process" do you not understand?

I am perfectly content with convicted felons being denied free exercise of
those rights, because that is the punishment for their crime as set forth by
the due process of their conviction for the crime.

Which BTW, I believe is set forth within the 5th Amendment.

Really Dheupchucka, you can't even read or follow your own Constitution, so
don't even try to claim you understand ours.
Post by Just Wondering
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
de chucka
2017-07-29 04:48:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by de chucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Correct me if I'm wrong, but has the authority to restrain law
abiding people been delegated to government?
You asked for the justification, you didn't ask if that power was
delegated to the government.
I can only answer what you ask, and I'm not going to try and
predict what you're going to ask next.
Post by Peter Franks
Can it even /be/ delegated... ?
We can delegate pretty much any power to the government...
You can't delegate the power to infringe on fundamental rights.
5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
And just to insure that wasn't a mistake
13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Both Amendments allow for the infringement of fundamental rights.
That does not appear to be true. Please explain.
5th amendment allows the government to infringe upon your right to
life by executing you.
13th Amendment allows the government to infringe up your right to self
ownership and turn you into property.
Then we can get into all the other rights these amendments would allow
the government to infringe upon so as to punish you for your crime(s).
However, the issue was fundamental rights. I think a right to life
and self ownership can be considered fundamental rights, and we have
empowered the government to infringe upon those rights. Sure, as
punishment for a crime by due process, but the authorization was still
given.
No right is unlimited. If you murder someone you have surrendered your
right to life and no longer have the right. If you are given due
process, are tried, convicted and sentenced to death, and the sentence
is carried out, it doesn't infringe on your right to life because at
that point you no longer HAVE a right to life.
So why do you lot gone about 2A as if it is sacrosanct ?
What part of "due process" do you not understand?
So rights aren't sacrosanct?
Post by Scout
I am perfectly content with convicted felons being denied free exercise
of those rights, because that is the punishment for their crime as set
forth by the due process of their conviction for the crime.
Which BTW, I believe is set forth within the 5th Amendment.
Really Dheupchucka, you can't even read or follow your own Constitution,
so don't even try to claim you understand ours.
I understand both
Klaus Schadenfreude
2017-07-29 12:29:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by de chucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Correct me if I'm wrong, but has the authority to restrain law
abiding people been delegated to government?
You asked for the justification, you didn't ask if that power was
delegated to the government.
I can only answer what you ask, and I'm not going to try and
predict what you're going to ask next.
Post by Peter Franks
Can it even /be/ delegated... ?
We can delegate pretty much any power to the government...
You can't delegate the power to infringe on fundamental rights.
5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
And just to insure that wasn't a mistake
13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Both Amendments allow for the infringement of fundamental rights.
That does not appear to be true. Please explain.
5th amendment allows the government to infringe upon your right to
life by executing you.
13th Amendment allows the government to infringe up your right to self
ownership and turn you into property.
Then we can get into all the other rights these amendments would allow
the government to infringe upon so as to punish you for your crime(s).
However, the issue was fundamental rights. I think a right to life
and self ownership can be considered fundamental rights, and we have
empowered the government to infringe upon those rights. Sure, as
punishment for a crime by due process, but the authorization was still
given.
No right is unlimited. If you murder someone you have surrendered your
right to life and no longer have the right. If you are given due
process, are tried, convicted and sentenced to death, and the sentence
is carried out, it doesn't infringe on your right to life because at
that point you no longer HAVE a right to life.
So why do you lot gone about 2A as if it is sacrosanct ?
What part of "due process" do you not understand?
So rights aren't sacrosanct?
"What part of 'due process' don't you understand?" was the question.

I'm guessing "all of it."
Scout
2017-07-29 18:12:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by de chucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Correct me if I'm wrong, but has the authority to restrain law
abiding people been delegated to government?
You asked for the justification, you didn't ask if that power was
delegated to the government.
I can only answer what you ask, and I'm not going to try and
predict what you're going to ask next.
Post by Peter Franks
Can it even /be/ delegated... ?
We can delegate pretty much any power to the government...
You can't delegate the power to infringe on fundamental rights.
5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
And just to insure that wasn't a mistake
13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Both Amendments allow for the infringement of fundamental rights.
That does not appear to be true. Please explain.
5th amendment allows the government to infringe upon your right to
life by executing you.
13th Amendment allows the government to infringe up your right to self
ownership and turn you into property.
Then we can get into all the other rights these amendments would allow
the government to infringe upon so as to punish you for your crime(s).
However, the issue was fundamental rights. I think a right to life
and self ownership can be considered fundamental rights, and we have
empowered the government to infringe upon those rights. Sure, as
punishment for a crime by due process, but the authorization was still
given.
No right is unlimited. If you murder someone you have surrendered your
right to life and no longer have the right. If you are given due
process, are tried, convicted and sentenced to death, and the sentence
is carried out, it doesn't infringe on your right to life because at
that point you no longer HAVE a right to life.
So why do you lot gone about 2A as if it is sacrosanct ?
What part of "due process" do you not understand?
So rights aren't sacrosanct?
"What part of 'due process' don't you understand?" was the question.
I'm guessing "all of it."
That seems to be the case.
RD Sandman
2017-07-29 16:35:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by de chucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Correct me if I'm wrong, but has the authority to restrain
law abiding people been delegated to government?
You asked for the justification, you didn't ask if that power
was delegated to the government.
I can only answer what you ask, and I'm not going to try and
predict what you're going to ask next.
Post by Peter Franks
Can it even /be/ delegated... ?
We can delegate pretty much any power to the government...
You can't delegate the power to infringe on fundamental rights.
5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
And just to insure that wasn't a mistake
13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Both Amendments allow for the infringement of fundamental rights.
That does not appear to be true. Please explain.
5th amendment allows the government to infringe upon your right
to life by executing you.
13th Amendment allows the government to infringe up your right to
self ownership and turn you into property.
Then we can get into all the other rights these amendments would
allow the government to infringe upon so as to punish you for
your crime(s).
However, the issue was fundamental rights. I think a right to
life and self ownership can be considered fundamental rights, and
we have empowered the government to infringe upon those rights.
Sure, as punishment for a crime by due process, but the
authorization was still given.
No right is unlimited. If you murder someone you have surrendered
your right to life and no longer have the right. If you are given
due process, are tried, convicted and sentenced to death, and the
sentence is carried out, it doesn't infringe on your right to life
because at that point you no longer HAVE a right to life.
So why do you lot gone about 2A as if it is sacrosanct ?
What part of "due process" do you not understand?
So rights aren't sacrosanct?
No right is absolute. One example is that if your government doesn't
recognize that right, you cannot openly practice it. Another is that
there are exceptions to the practice of that right. Guns, for example,
cannot be legally owned by felons or some of the mentally ill. They
cannot be purchased by those who are deemed to be too young.
--
RD Sandman

If you see a bomb technician running....
Do try to keep up with him.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Scout
2017-07-29 04:20:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/25/appeals-court-blocks-dcs-concealed-
carry-law-on-second-amendment-grounds.html
A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a District of
Columbia gun-
control measure that the court said is essentially an outright ban in
violation of the Second Amendment.
D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to obtain a
concealed
carry permit.
...
Anyone know what the justification for the "good reason" law is?
to restrain the ability of people to protect themselves.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but has the authority to restrain law
abiding people been delegated to government?
You asked for the justification, you didn't ask if that power was
delegated to the government.
I can only answer what you ask, and I'm not going to try and predict
what you're going to ask next.
Post by Peter Franks
Can it even /be/ delegated... ?
We can delegate pretty much any power to the government...
You can't delegate the power to infringe on fundamental rights.
5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
And just to insure that wasn't a mistake
13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Both Amendments allow for the infringement of fundamental rights.
That does not appear to be true. Please explain.
5th amendment allows the government to infringe upon your right to life
by executing you.
13th Amendment allows the government to infringe up your right to self
ownership and turn you into property.
Then we can get into all the other rights these amendments would allow
the government to infringe upon so as to punish you for your crime(s).
However, the issue was fundamental rights. I think a right to life and
self ownership can be considered fundamental rights, and we have
empowered the government to infringe upon those rights. Sure, as
punishment for a crime by due process, but the authorization was still
given.
No right is unlimited.
I never said it was.
Post by Just Wondering
If you murder someone you have surrendered your right to life and no
longer have the right.
Wrong. What you have surrendered would be an PROTECTIONS of your right.

You still have the right, for no one can remove your rights from you, nor
can anyone given back what couldn't be taken.

What you lose is the protection of your rights afforded by the law.
Post by Just Wondering
If you are given due process, are tried, convicted and sentenced to death,
and the sentence is carried out, it doesn't infringe on your right to life
because at that point you no longer HAVE a right to life.
I would note that you're suggesting that the government has the power to
remove rights. If that doesn't amount to an infringement of your right, then
I would like to know what you call it.

Either way, your right to life has been infringed....and the government has
been empowered to do so....even with fundamental rights.
Just Wondering
2017-07-29 08:10:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/25/appeals-court-blocks-dcs-concealed-
carry-law-on-second-amendment-grounds.html
A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a District of
Columbia gun-
control measure that the court said is essentially an outright ban in
violation of the Second Amendment.
D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to obtain a
concealed
carry permit.
...
Anyone know what the justification for the "good reason" law is?
to restrain the ability of people to protect themselves.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but has the authority to restrain law
abiding people been delegated to government?
You asked for the justification, you didn't ask if that power was
delegated to the government.
I can only answer what you ask, and I'm not going to try and
predict what you're going to ask next.
Post by Peter Franks
Can it even /be/ delegated... ?
We can delegate pretty much any power to the government...
You can't delegate the power to infringe on fundamental rights.
5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
And just to insure that wasn't a mistake
13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Both Amendments allow for the infringement of fundamental rights.
That does not appear to be true. Please explain.
5th amendment allows the government to infringe upon your right to
life by executing you.
13th Amendment allows the government to infringe up your right to
self ownership and turn you into property.
Then we can get into all the other rights these amendments would
allow the government to infringe upon so as to punish you for your
crime(s).
However, the issue was fundamental rights. I think a right to life
and self ownership can be considered fundamental rights, and we have
empowered the government to infringe upon those rights. Sure, as
punishment for a crime by due process, but the authorization was
still given.
No right is unlimited.
I never said it was.
Post by Just Wondering
If you murder someone you have surrendered your right to life and no
longer have the right.
Wrong. What you have surrendered would be an PROTECTIONS of your right.
You still have the right, for no one can remove your rights from you,
nor can anyone given back what couldn't be taken.
What you lose is the protection of your rights afforded by the law.
Post by Just Wondering
If you are given due process, are tried, convicted and sentenced to
death, and the sentence is carried out, it doesn't infringe on your
right to life because at that point you no longer HAVE a right to life.
I would note that you're suggesting that the government has the power to
remove rights. If that doesn't amount to an infringement of your right,
then I would like to know what you call it.
I call it the surrender/waiver of your right. The government doesn't
take the right from you, you give it up/away.
Post by Scout
Either way, your right to life has been infringed....and the government
has been empowered to do so....even with fundamental rights.
Scout
2017-07-29 18:11:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/25/appeals-court-blocks-dcs-concealed-
carry-law-on-second-amendment-grounds.html
A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a District of
Columbia gun-
control measure that the court said is essentially an outright ban in
violation of the Second Amendment.
D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to obtain a
concealed
carry permit.
...
Anyone know what the justification for the "good reason" law is?
to restrain the ability of people to protect themselves.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but has the authority to restrain law
abiding people been delegated to government?
You asked for the justification, you didn't ask if that power was
delegated to the government.
I can only answer what you ask, and I'm not going to try and
predict what you're going to ask next.
Post by Peter Franks
Can it even /be/ delegated... ?
We can delegate pretty much any power to the government...
You can't delegate the power to infringe on fundamental rights.
5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
And just to insure that wasn't a mistake
13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Both Amendments allow for the infringement of fundamental rights.
That does not appear to be true. Please explain.
5th amendment allows the government to infringe upon your right to life
by executing you.
13th Amendment allows the government to infringe up your right to self
ownership and turn you into property.
Then we can get into all the other rights these amendments would allow
the government to infringe upon so as to punish you for your crime(s).
However, the issue was fundamental rights. I think a right to life and
self ownership can be considered fundamental rights, and we have
empowered the government to infringe upon those rights. Sure, as
punishment for a crime by due process, but the authorization was still
given.
No right is unlimited.
I never said it was.
Post by Just Wondering
If you murder someone you have surrendered your right to life and no
longer have the right.
Wrong. What you have surrendered would be an PROTECTIONS of your right.
You still have the right, for no one can remove your rights from you, nor
can anyone given back what couldn't be taken.
What you lose is the protection of your rights afforded by the law.
Post by Just Wondering
If you are given due process, are tried, convicted and sentenced to
death, and the sentence is carried out, it doesn't infringe on your
right to life because at that point you no longer HAVE a right to life.
I would note that you're suggesting that the government has the power to
remove rights. If that doesn't amount to an infringement of your right,
then I would like to know what you call it.
I call it the surrender/waiver of your right. The government doesn't take
the right from you, you give it up/away.
Really? The Defendant stood up in court and pleaded that the government end
his life?

I don't think so.
Just Wondering
2017-07-29 18:38:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/25/appeals-court-blocks-dcs-concealed-
carry-law-on-second-amendment-grounds.html
A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a District
of Columbia gun-
control measure that the court said is essentially an
outright ban in
violation of the Second Amendment.
D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to obtain
a concealed
carry permit.
...
Anyone know what the justification for the "good reason" law is?
to restrain the ability of people to protect themselves.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but has the authority to restrain law
abiding people been delegated to government?
You asked for the justification, you didn't ask if that power
was delegated to the government.
I can only answer what you ask, and I'm not going to try and
predict what you're going to ask next.
Post by Peter Franks
Can it even /be/ delegated... ?
We can delegate pretty much any power to the government...
You can't delegate the power to infringe on fundamental rights.
5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
And just to insure that wasn't a mistake
13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Both Amendments allow for the infringement of fundamental rights.
That does not appear to be true. Please explain.
5th amendment allows the government to infringe upon your right to
life by executing you.
13th Amendment allows the government to infringe up your right to
self ownership and turn you into property.
Then we can get into all the other rights these amendments would
allow the government to infringe upon so as to punish you for your
crime(s).
However, the issue was fundamental rights. I think a right to life
and self ownership can be considered fundamental rights, and we
have empowered the government to infringe upon those rights. Sure,
as punishment for a crime by due process, but the authorization was
still given.
No right is unlimited.
I never said it was.
Post by Just Wondering
If you murder someone you have surrendered your right to life and no
longer have the right.
Wrong. What you have surrendered would be an PROTECTIONS of your right.
You still have the right, for no one can remove your rights from you,
nor can anyone given back what couldn't be taken.
What you lose is the protection of your rights afforded by the law.
Post by Just Wondering
If you are given due process, are tried, convicted and sentenced to
death, and the sentence is carried out, it doesn't infringe on your
right to life because at that point you no longer HAVE a right to life.
I would note that you're suggesting that the government has the power
to remove rights. If that doesn't amount to an infringement of your
right, then I would like to know what you call it.
I call it the surrender/waiver of your right. The government doesn't
take the right from you, you give it up/away.
Really? The Defendant stood up in court and pleaded that the government
end his life?
That wasn't the waiver. He gave up the right
when he committed the murder.
Scout
2017-07-29 18:56:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/25/appeals-court-blocks-dcs-concealed-
carry-law-on-second-amendment-grounds.html
A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a District of
Columbia gun-
control measure that the court said is essentially an
outright ban in
violation of the Second Amendment.
D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to obtain a
concealed
carry permit.
...
Anyone know what the justification for the "good reason" law is?
to restrain the ability of people to protect themselves.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but has the authority to restrain law
abiding people been delegated to government?
You asked for the justification, you didn't ask if that power was
delegated to the government.
I can only answer what you ask, and I'm not going to try and
predict what you're going to ask next.
Post by Peter Franks
Can it even /be/ delegated... ?
We can delegate pretty much any power to the government...
You can't delegate the power to infringe on fundamental rights.
5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
And just to insure that wasn't a mistake
13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Both Amendments allow for the infringement of fundamental rights.
That does not appear to be true. Please explain.
5th amendment allows the government to infringe upon your right to
life by executing you.
13th Amendment allows the government to infringe up your right to
self ownership and turn you into property.
Then we can get into all the other rights these amendments would
allow the government to infringe upon so as to punish you for your
crime(s).
However, the issue was fundamental rights. I think a right to life
and self ownership can be considered fundamental rights, and we have
empowered the government to infringe upon those rights. Sure, as
punishment for a crime by due process, but the authorization was
still given.
No right is unlimited.
I never said it was.
Post by Just Wondering
If you murder someone you have surrendered your right to life and no
longer have the right.
Wrong. What you have surrendered would be an PROTECTIONS of your right.
You still have the right, for no one can remove your rights from you,
nor can anyone given back what couldn't be taken.
What you lose is the protection of your rights afforded by the law.
Post by Just Wondering
If you are given due process, are tried, convicted and sentenced to
death, and the sentence is carried out, it doesn't infringe on your
right to life because at that point you no longer HAVE a right to life.
I would note that you're suggesting that the government has the power
to remove rights. If that doesn't amount to an infringement of your
right, then I would like to know what you call it.
I call it the surrender/waiver of your right. The government doesn't
take the right from you, you give it up/away.
Really? The Defendant stood up in court and pleaded that the government
end his life?
That wasn't the waiver. He gave up the right
when he committed the murder.
Nope, I don't see where that means he give up his rights. Indeed virtually
all seek to remain alive even after the conviction. Stays of execution,
appeals, delays, even appeals for pardons. So, no it doesn't seem like they
gave up their rights.

After all, if it were true they gave up their rights then we wouldn't need
to get a warrant, give him a speedy jury trial, or otherwise respect his
rights. Indeed under your analysis the police could arrest him, cuff him,
take him out back and legally shoot him in the head. No hearing. No trial.
No due process.

Nope, just because you commit a crime doesn't mean you give up your rights.

Indeed, you can't give up your rights. They are inherent and exist as long
as you live.

What can be done is to empower the government to infringe upon your rights
as punishment after being convicted by due process.

Which is exactly how it's done.

That criminal still has his right to life, but we have empowered the
government to no longer care about their rights which are to be infringed
upon as punishment for their crime(s). Imprisonment, slavery, even execution
are all infringements of our rights, but allowed, because we have empowered
the government to infringe upon them with wrong doers.

Anyway, you can dance all you like, but the end result is that we have
empowered the government to infringe upon rights, even fundamental rights.
Now true, it is under particular circumstances, but the issue was whether we
could do so, and we clearly have done so.

You can deny it all you like, but denial of the facts and
Peter Franks
2017-07-30 04:30:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/25/appeals-court-blocks-dcs-concealed-
carry-law-on-second-amendment-grounds.html
A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a District
of Columbia gun-
control measure that the court said is essentially an
outright ban in
violation of the Second Amendment.
D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to
obtain a concealed
carry permit.
...
Anyone know what the justification for the "good reason" law is?
to restrain the ability of people to protect themselves.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but has the authority to restrain
law abiding people been delegated to government?
You asked for the justification, you didn't ask if that power
was delegated to the government.
I can only answer what you ask, and I'm not going to try and
predict what you're going to ask next.
Post by Peter Franks
Can it even /be/ delegated... ?
We can delegate pretty much any power to the government...
You can't delegate the power to infringe on fundamental rights.
5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
And just to insure that wasn't a mistake
13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Both Amendments allow for the infringement of fundamental rights.
That does not appear to be true. Please explain.
5th amendment allows the government to infringe upon your right
to life by executing you.
13th Amendment allows the government to infringe up your right to
self ownership and turn you into property.
Then we can get into all the other rights these amendments would
allow the government to infringe upon so as to punish you for
your crime(s).
However, the issue was fundamental rights. I think a right to
life and self ownership can be considered fundamental rights, and
we have empowered the government to infringe upon those rights.
Sure, as punishment for a crime by due process, but the
authorization was still given.
No right is unlimited.
I never said it was.
Post by Just Wondering
If you murder someone you have surrendered your right to life and
no longer have the right.
Wrong. What you have surrendered would be an PROTECTIONS of your right.
You still have the right, for no one can remove your rights from
you, nor can anyone given back what couldn't be taken.
What you lose is the protection of your rights afforded by the law.
Post by Just Wondering
If you are given due process, are tried, convicted and sentenced
to death, and the sentence is carried out, it doesn't infringe on
your right to life because at that point you no longer HAVE a
right to life.
I would note that you're suggesting that the government has the
power to remove rights. If that doesn't amount to an infringement
of your right, then I would like to know what you call it.
I call it the surrender/waiver of your right. The government
doesn't take the right from you, you give it up/away.
Really? The Defendant stood up in court and pleaded that the
government end his life?
That wasn't the waiver. He gave up the right
when he committed the murder.
Nope, I don't see where that means he give up his rights.
Based on the concept of equality, he most certainly did forfeit his
rights. If he didn't, then there is no equality (his right to life is
superior to the person that he murdered).

Do you subscribe to the concept of equality or not?
Scout
2017-07-30 05:04:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/25/appeals-court-blocks-dcs-concealed-
carry-law-on-second-amendment-grounds.html
A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a District
of Columbia gun-
control measure that the court said is essentially an
outright ban in
violation of the Second Amendment.
D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to obtain
a concealed
carry permit.
...
Anyone know what the justification for the "good reason" law
is?
to restrain the ability of people to protect themselves.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but has the authority to restrain law
abiding people been delegated to government?
You asked for the justification, you didn't ask if that power
was delegated to the government.
I can only answer what you ask, and I'm not going to try and
predict what you're going to ask next.
Post by Peter Franks
Can it even /be/ delegated... ?
We can delegate pretty much any power to the government...
You can't delegate the power to infringe on fundamental rights.
5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
And just to insure that wasn't a mistake
13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Both Amendments allow for the infringement of fundamental rights.
That does not appear to be true. Please explain.
5th amendment allows the government to infringe upon your right to
life by executing you.
13th Amendment allows the government to infringe up your right to
self ownership and turn you into property.
Then we can get into all the other rights these amendments would
allow the government to infringe upon so as to punish you for your
crime(s).
However, the issue was fundamental rights. I think a right to life
and self ownership can be considered fundamental rights, and we
have empowered the government to infringe upon those rights. Sure,
as punishment for a crime by due process, but the authorization was
still given.
No right is unlimited.
I never said it was.
Post by Just Wondering
If you murder someone you have surrendered your right to life and no
longer have the right.
Wrong. What you have surrendered would be an PROTECTIONS of your right.
You still have the right, for no one can remove your rights from you,
nor can anyone given back what couldn't be taken.
What you lose is the protection of your rights afforded by the law.
Post by Just Wondering
If you are given due process, are tried, convicted and sentenced to
death, and the sentence is carried out, it doesn't infringe on your
right to life because at that point you no longer HAVE a right to life.
I would note that you're suggesting that the government has the power
to remove rights. If that doesn't amount to an infringement of your
right, then I would like to know what you call it.
I call it the surrender/waiver of your right. The government doesn't
take the right from you, you give it up/away.
Really? The Defendant stood up in court and pleaded that the government
end his life?
That wasn't the waiver. He gave up the right
when he committed the murder.
Nope, I don't see where that means he give up his rights.
Based on the concept of equality, he most certainly did forfeit his
rights.
No, he forfeited the protection of his rights under the law.

A nit, but a critical one, unless you want to imply that rights are
something that depend on the government being able to grant/remove your
rights.

Rights are inherent....the protection of those rights, that is the function
of government.

See the Declaration of Independence.
Post by Peter Franks
If he didn't, then there is no equality (his right to life is superior to
the person that he murdered).
So you agree the government has the delegated power/authority to infringe
upon our rights, in certain circumstances.
Post by Peter Franks
Do you subscribe to the concept of equality or not?
Do you subscribe to the concept that the government has delegated powers and
authority to infringe upon our rights in certain circumstances?
Peter Franks
2017-07-30 04:26:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/25/appeals-court-blocks-dcs-concealed-
carry-law-on-second-amendment-grounds.html
A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a District of
Columbia gun-
control measure that the court said is essentially an outright ban in
violation of the Second Amendment.
D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to obtain a
concealed
carry permit.
...
Anyone know what the justification for the "good reason" law is?
to restrain the ability of people to protect themselves.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but has the authority to restrain law
abiding people been delegated to government?
You asked for the justification, you didn't ask if that power
was delegated to the government.
I can only answer what you ask, and I'm not going to try and
predict what you're going to ask next.
Post by Peter Franks
Can it even /be/ delegated... ?
We can delegate pretty much any power to the government...
You can't delegate the power to infringe on fundamental rights.
5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
And just to insure that wasn't a mistake
13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Both Amendments allow for the infringement of fundamental rights.
That does not appear to be true. Please explain.
5th amendment allows the government to infringe upon your right to
life by executing you.
13th Amendment allows the government to infringe up your right to
self ownership and turn you into property.
Then we can get into all the other rights these amendments would
allow the government to infringe upon so as to punish you for your
crime(s).
However, the issue was fundamental rights. I think a right to life
and self ownership can be considered fundamental rights, and we have
empowered the government to infringe upon those rights. Sure, as
punishment for a crime by due process, but the authorization was
still given.
No right is unlimited.
I never said it was.
Post by Just Wondering
If you murder someone you have surrendered your right to life and no
longer have the right.
Wrong. What you have surrendered would be an PROTECTIONS of your right.
You still have the right, for no one can remove your rights from you,
nor can anyone given back what couldn't be taken.
What you lose is the protection of your rights afforded by the law.
Post by Just Wondering
If you are given due process, are tried, convicted and sentenced to
death, and the sentence is carried out, it doesn't infringe on your
right to life because at that point you no longer HAVE a right to life.
I would note that you're suggesting that the government has the power
to remove rights. If that doesn't amount to an infringement of your
right, then I would like to know what you call it.
I call it the surrender/waiver of your right. The government doesn't
take the right from you, you give it up/away.
That is correct. The concept is that if you violate the rights of
another, you have surrendered your rights.

A just government will enforce that surrender via a quid pro quo or
equivalent.

All that has been granted to government -- all that can be granted to
government -- is order and moderation in the forfeiture of rights.

All of this is based on the premise of equality -- if people treat
others equally and fairly, the species flourishes; if people don't, the
species dwindles.
Scout
2017-07-30 04:59:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/25/appeals-court-blocks-dcs-concealed-
carry-law-on-second-amendment-grounds.html
A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a District of
Columbia gun-
control measure that the court said is essentially an outright
ban in
violation of the Second Amendment.
D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to obtain a
concealed
carry permit.
...
Anyone know what the justification for the "good reason" law is?
to restrain the ability of people to protect themselves.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but has the authority to restrain law
abiding people been delegated to government?
You asked for the justification, you didn't ask if that power was
delegated to the government.
I can only answer what you ask, and I'm not going to try and
predict what you're going to ask next.
Post by Peter Franks
Can it even /be/ delegated... ?
We can delegate pretty much any power to the government...
You can't delegate the power to infringe on fundamental rights.
5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
And just to insure that wasn't a mistake
13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Both Amendments allow for the infringement of fundamental rights.
That does not appear to be true. Please explain.
5th amendment allows the government to infringe upon your right to
life by executing you.
13th Amendment allows the government to infringe up your right to self
ownership and turn you into property.
Then we can get into all the other rights these amendments would allow
the government to infringe upon so as to punish you for your crime(s).
However, the issue was fundamental rights. I think a right to life
and self ownership can be considered fundamental rights, and we have
empowered the government to infringe upon those rights. Sure, as
punishment for a crime by due process, but the authorization was still
given.
No right is unlimited.
I never said it was.
Post by Just Wondering
If you murder someone you have surrendered your right to life and no
longer have the right.
Wrong. What you have surrendered would be an PROTECTIONS of your right.
You still have the right, for no one can remove your rights from you,
nor can anyone given back what couldn't be taken.
What you lose is the protection of your rights afforded by the law.
Post by Just Wondering
If you are given due process, are tried, convicted and sentenced to
death, and the sentence is carried out, it doesn't infringe on your
right to life because at that point you no longer HAVE a right to life.
I would note that you're suggesting that the government has the power to
remove rights. If that doesn't amount to an infringement of your right,
then I would like to know what you call it.
I call it the surrender/waiver of your right. The government doesn't
take the right from you, you give it up/away.
That is correct. The concept is that if you violate the rights of
another, you have surrendered your rights.
A just government will enforce that surrender via a quid pro quo or
equivalent.
All that has been granted to government -- all that can be granted to
government -- is order and moderation in the forfeiture of rights.
Oh, so now you're going to tell me that a forfeiture of rights, isn't the
same as an infringement of rights?

Tell me, if the government can take your rights away.......then how can you
claim they are inherent?

You can't have it both ways there bubba.

But I will simply note that you're already refuting your absolute position
of just a few minutes ago..

Your response here 12:26

"A just government can't deny rights. Period" 12:10

Seems like you just told me they can deny rights.....

"It's never within the purview of a just government." 12:12

Darn, seems you're telling me, now, that we don't have a just government....

Now, in general, what you say should and does apply normally to the average
population....

HOWEVER, there are exceptions, such as in the application of punishment for
a crime for individuals, and more broadly in general revolts, and such like.

After all, remember Article 1, Section 9?

I think you need to calm down, step back, take a few slow deep breaths...and
reconsider exactly what it is you're trying to say and start over from the
top.
Peter Franks
2017-07-30 04:19:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/25/appeals-court-blocks-dcs-concealed-
carry-law-on-second-amendment-grounds.html
A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a District of Columbia gun-
control measure that the court said is essentially an outright ban in
violation of the Second Amendment.
D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to obtain a concealed
carry permit.
...
Anyone know what the justification for the "good reason" law is?
to restrain the ability of people to protect themselves.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but has the authority to restrain law abiding
people been delegated to government?
You asked for the justification, you didn't ask if that power was
delegated to the government.
Restraint of the free exercise of rights is not just(ification).

Justification -> justify -> just -> Consistent with what is morally right.

Restraint CAN'T be a justification, they are antithetical.
Post by Scout
I can only answer what you ask, and I'm not going to try and predict
what you're going to ask next.
Post by Peter Franks
Can it even /be/ delegated... ?
We can delegate pretty much any power to the government...
I said 'authority', not power.

The authorities that can be delegated are few. Very few. I do not have
the authority to restrain the free exercise of someone else's rights,
ergo I have not ability to delegate such authority to anyone else,
including government.

I'll answer my own question: No, it can't be delegated.
Scout
2017-07-30 04:48:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/25/appeals-court-blocks-dcs-concealed-
carry-law-on-second-amendment-grounds.html
A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a District of Columbia gun-
control measure that the court said is essentially an outright ban in
violation of the Second Amendment.
D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to obtain a concealed
carry permit.
...
Anyone know what the justification for the "good reason" law is?
to restrain the ability of people to protect themselves.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but has the authority to restrain law abiding
people been delegated to government?
You asked for the justification, you didn't ask if that power was
delegated to the government.
Restraint of the free exercise of rights is not just(ification).
Justification -> justify -> just -> Consistent with what is morally right.
Restraint CAN'T be a justification, they are antithetical.
Post by Scout
I can only answer what you ask, and I'm not going to try and predict what
you're going to ask next.
Post by Peter Franks
Can it even /be/ delegated... ?
We can delegate pretty much any power to the government...
I said 'authority', not power.
Which a delegation of power would automatically require.

Duh.
Post by Peter Franks
The authorities that can be delegated are few. Very few.
Really?

Cite where the Constitution places a limit on the authority that could be
granted to the federal government via Constitutional Amendment....
Post by Peter Franks
I do not have the authority to restrain the free exercise of someone else's
rights, ergo I have not ability to delegate such authority to anyone else,
including government.
You would if you were a judge, sentencing a convict to punishment.

However, you can delegate such authority, via Constitutional Amendment.

Indeed, as I've noted such a delegation of authority/power has already been
made in at least 2 separate cases.

To allow executions
and
To allow involuntary servitude and/or slavery

As punishment for crimes having been convicted by due process.

You shouldn't say it can't be done....when it's already been done...and in
one case by the very people who ratified the Constitution.
Peter Franks
2017-08-18 19:56:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/25/appeals-court-blocks-dcs-concealed-
carry-law-on-second-amendment-grounds.html
A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a District of Columbia gun-
control measure that the court said is essentially an outright ban in
violation of the Second Amendment.
D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to obtain a concealed
carry permit.
...
Anyone know what the justification for the "good reason" law is?
to restrain the ability of people to protect themselves.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but has the authority to restrain law
abiding people been delegated to government?
You asked for the justification, you didn't ask if that power was
delegated to the government.
Restraint of the free exercise of rights is not just(ification).
Justification -> justify -> just -> Consistent with what is morally right.
Restraint CAN'T be a justification, they are antithetical.
Post by Scout
I can only answer what you ask, and I'm not going to try and predict
what you're going to ask next.
Post by Peter Franks
Can it even /be/ delegated... ?
We can delegate pretty much any power to the government...
I said 'authority', not power.
Which a delegation of power would automatically require.
Duh.
Post by Peter Franks
The authorities that can be delegated are few. Very few.
Really?
Cite where the Constitution places a limit on the authority that could
be granted to the federal government via Constitutional Amendment....
None.

That doesn't change my argument in the least: there are certain
authorities that CAN'T be delegated. Just are there are inalienable
rights. No authority can be granted to alienate rights from one person
to another.

Which serves as the entire basis of my argument here: The authority to
ban/regulate the arms of law-abiding citizens can't be delegated to
government.

No person has the authority to do that, ergo no group of people has that
authority, ergo it can't be delegated.
Post by Scout
Post by Peter Franks
I do not have the authority to restrain the free exercise of someone
else's rights, ergo I have not ability to delegate such authority to
anyone else, including government.
You would if you were a judge, sentencing a convict to punishment.
We are talking about law-abiding citizens. Keep it limited to that
until we have a common understanding. Once we reach that ground we can
then branch out to the other conditions (e.g. not law abiding).

NO JUDGE or GOVERNMENT or PERSON has the authority to (arbitrarily)
restrain the free exercise of someone's rights.
Post by Scout
However, you can delegate such authority, via Constitutional Amendment.
Negative. That which is not held can't be delegated.
Post by Scout
Indeed, as I've noted such a delegation of authority/power has already
been made in at least 2 separate cases.
To allow executions
and
To allow involuntary servitude and/or slavery
As punishment for crimes having been convicted by due process.
You shouldn't say it can't be done....when it's already been done...and
in one case by the very people who ratified the Constitution.
Loading...