Voter ID vs Carry ID

[texasprowler]

I'll buy that. Then what is or isn't a right is based on an individuals belief system. What some say is a right, such as voting, isn't within anothers value system.
Unfortunately we are stuck with the short list of rights that our fed gov recognizes and guarantees, ratified by the state we live in.

Frankly, I can't find any rights on the list, including speech and religion that isn't adulterated by gov tyranny.

[texasprowler]

In addition to renounced citizenship, 18 USC 921 also specifies aliens who are here illegally, have entered unlawfully, and those non-citizens who are here with non-immigrant visas. Your Canadian friends must have green cards, a US attorney general waiver, a valid hunting license, or are living on the edge. But their god given natural right to bear arms is not guaranteed on US soil.

"The fact that the right to vote can be denied to entire groups of people 'non-citizens' is conclusive evidence that the right to vote is a privilege"

Subvert 'vote' with 'bear arms' still equals privilege?

[jshuberg]

Rights are not limited to only those enumerated in the constitution, as the constitution does not grant rights, it merely recognizes *some* of them. It was in fact argued by the Federalists at the constitutional convention that it was unnecessary to enumerate the rights the Federal government recognized, as the Federal government didn't have sufficient power to be able to infringe on those rights. Thankfully, the Anti-Federalists made a compelling enough argument that the bill of rights was introduced after the constitution was ratified in the first congress.

"The fact that the right to vote can be denied to entire groups of people 'non-citizens' is conclusive evidence that the right to vote is a privilege"

You got me here, I misspoke. It's not that the fact that the ability to vote is denied certain groups that evidences the fact that it's a privilege, it's that the ability to vote can be correctly denied certain groups of people. The rights of non citizens are not being infringed when they are denied the ability to vote. Someone living in Zimbabwe does not have the right to vote in a US election, not does someone visiting the US have the right to vote. The notion is absolutely absurd.

Some people would argue that the Brady Act (and other legislation that restricts firearms ownership) has crossed the line into infringing on the right to bear arms. My personal opinion is that unless an individual has had the right to bear arms stripped from him by due process of law, in front of a judge, the act of simply denying the right to own firearms to certain groups of people is a violation of their fundamental rights. Just because a person is here in the US illegally doesn't mean his rights are automatically stripped of him. He can be deported for being here illegally, but while he is here he should be able to enjoy all of the fundamental human rights that being a human being requires. Legal rights, or privileges can be denied someone who is not legally in the country, but we should still recognize the fundamental rights of all people - including the right to bear arms. People living in the US illegally can still be attacked with violence, and they do still have the right to defend themself against that violence, with a firearm. Except the Brady Act denies this right to them. Unless a person commits a crime of violence, he should not have his right to bear arms stripped of him. Being in the country illegally is not inherently a violent act.

[tman]

My personal opinion is that unless an individual has had the right to bear arms stripped from him by due process of law, in front of a judge, the act of simply denying the right to own firearms to certain groups of people is a violation of their fundamental rights.

If a "right" is an absolute, how can ANY man be stripped of it - even by due process?

[Heffay]

My personal opinion is that unless an individual has had the right to bear arms stripped from him by due process of law, in front of a judge, the act of simply denying the right to own firearms to certain groups of people is a violation of their fundamental rights.

If a "right" is an absolute, how can ANY man be stripped of it - even by due process?

Because rights aren't absolute?

[Heffay]

Rights are not limited to only those enumerated in the constitution, as the constitution does not grant rights, it merely recognizes *some* of them.

All rights are recognized by the Constitution, and explicitly. 9th Amendment.

[tman]

My personal opinion is that unless an individual has had the right to bear arms stripped from him by due process of law, in front of a judge, the act of simply denying the right to own firearms to certain groups of people is a violation of their fundamental rights.

If a "right" is an absolute, how can ANY man be stripped of it - even by due process?

Because rights aren't absolute?

Justa for the sake of argument, doesn't the Constitution admit that these rights are UNALIENABLE?

[Heffay]

Just for the sake of argument, doesn't the Constitution admit that these rights are UNALIENABLE?

I thought that was in the Declaration of Independence?

[texasprowler]

I would agree that voting is not an absolute fundamental right, I just can't find a good argument to support my belief.

That voting is a man made construct? So are weapons.

That I pay for gov to do a job?
Then non-taxpayers shouldn't be granted equal privilege.

That non-citizens are affected by crime? So too are they affected by legislation.

What should be, based on belief is different than what is.

[texasprowler]

[quote="jshuberg"]
My personal opinion is that unless an individual has had the right to bear arms stripped from him by due process of law, in front of a judge, the act of simply denying the right to own firearms to certain groups of people is a violation of their fundamental rights.

If a "right" is an absolute, how can ANY man be stripped of it - even by due process?

Because rights aren't absolute?

Justa for the sake of argument, doesn't the Constitution admit that these rights are UNALIENABLE?[/quote]


A right means nothing if it isn't defended by a gun. We pay hired guns to guarantee constitutional rights on behalf of "We, the people", not "all you other foreign invaders".

[Heffay]

A right means nothing if it isn't defended by a gun.

A vote is more powerful than a gun. A vote can eliminate the 2nd Amendment, making it not a right anymore.

[tman]

Just for the sake of argument, doesn't the Constitution admit that these rights are UNALIENABLE?

I thought that was in the Declaration of Independence?

Shhh!

[jshuberg]

If a "right" is an absolute, how can ANY man be stripped of it - even by due process?

I don't think any right is absolute. Of all the rights we enjoy, the right to live is of most importance. However, a person can be denied even this most important right if he is found guilty of a crime that is punishable by the death penalty.

A vote is more powerful than a gun. A vote can eliminate the 2nd Amendment, making it not a right anymore.

Absolutely not. The right to keep and bear arms is not dependent on the constitution. Congress could repeal the 2nd amendment, and it wouldn't change the fact that the right exists.

Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/up ... 07-290.pdf

Then non-taxpayers shouldn't be granted equal privilege.

An argument can be made that since the right to suffrage is an extension to the right to own property, and that those who pay taxes have a right to representation on how their tax money will be spent, that those who do *not* pay taxes should not be entitled to vote. Most people think of the "right" to vote as being fundamental, and that everyone should have the right to vote, etc. etc. when in fact the truth is that the privilege of voting was only meant to be enjoyed only those whose tax dollars were used to fund the government. There is absolutely no chance that anything like this would ever be implemented in modern times though, with around 45% of the population not paying federal taxes, if someone were to raise the idea of restricting the ability to vote to only federal taxpayers, there would be riots in the streets - despite the fact that it would be absolutely constitutional to do so.

[Heffay]

Absolutely not. The right to keep and bear arms is not dependent on the constitution. Congress could repeal the 2nd amendment, and it wouldn't change the fact that the right exists.

The whole constitution can be thrown out if we so choose. Including the 9th Amendment, which is the one that you're probably referring to.

[jshuberg]

The whole constitution can be thrown out if we so choose. Including the 9th Amendment, which is the one that you're probably referring to.

The entire constitution could be thrown out, but that wouldn't change the fact that human beings still have rights. A government might decide not to recognize those rights, and may infringe on them or outright deny them by force of law, but no government on the planet can change the fact that human beings have rights simply by the fact that they're alive.

We are incredibly fortunate to live in (I believe) the only country whose government acknowledges that fundamental rights are not granted by the government, and therefor cannot be infringed or denied by that government. The Supreme Court said as much in the Heller ruling concerning the right to bear arms (cite above).