"You led me to believe that you would ...."
But I agree with your statement "Laws are written typically in response to people doing something you don't want them to do."
That wasn't the point. The question is: Do you have a right to be a cannibal? [assuming there is no law to prohibit it].
This stuff isn't as easy as it might seem. There's a little ditty that floats around..."that all humans are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, and among those are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness." Hope I got all the words right. Once upon a time I thought I knew what that meant...back in elementary school it was. Inalienable...they told us that meant it can't be taken away, surrendered, or transferred. I guess I was 10 when I believed that ditty. Then we asked about the death penalty. How "inalienable" is life when there is a death penalty? At age 10, it was more simply worded I'm sure. Now we see people indefinitely detained without charges, without access to lawyers and I ask...How inalienable is liberty? If a person thinks he is being threatened he/she can take another person's life. Doesn't look to me like "life" is much of an inalienable right.
I think when survival is at stake the rules are different than when things are working normally.
Flexibility in the "Rule of Law"...it depends, sometimes it's agains the law, sometimes not. They actually do that more in the UK; they have laws wrt force that are guided by "common sense"; it seems to mostly work. But in the US we insist on "Where's the line?"
I think that was your intent, and in my mind that is why it is a good example of playing word games instead of answering a question forthright.
If I haven't answered your question, it's not because I haven't tried. This Creator guy/gal apparently endows rights...I'm not sure what happens to the poor atheists here. The Creator endows them whether there's a creator or not.
"I didn't see the words protect your property and defend yourself enumerated in the Constitution."--- My right to keep and bear arms allows me to do this.
Ignoring your use of the word "right"...Calling the police also affords you some protection. A burglar alarm might do even better than the police or a gun, if we're talking about your property. I think it's been shown that the silly little sign that says you have an alarm does as good a job as having an alarm. There are various ways to achieve protection. Or you can use your gun to take away that inalienable right to life if you feel kinda threatened. Besides, it's your word against his and he's dead.
As an aside, notice the little game you [we] are playing. Sometimes we say "Where are those words in the Constitution"...sometimes we say..."That's what the Framers intended." Aren't we picking and choosing the convenient moments when to use those phrases. Nor are we the only ones. Where is the word "Privacy" in the Constitution?
I'll bet that Scalia won't be so keen on his Constitutional constructionism, [common law circa 1791 applies] when it comes to Roe v. Wade... college.hmco.com
And if the Supreme Court rules in a manner where they interpret ...it's ok as long as they agree with the Court, if they don't agree with the Court then they're judicial activists and making law.
On the other hand, some people don't really give a shit, whether some particular legislation is unconstitutional. Line item veto, being one. Obviously unconstitutional. It's a no brainer. Partial birth abortion, another obviously unconstitutional law. As far as I'm concerned, any member of Congress that voted for either one of those shouldn't be sitting in Congress.
Do you feel the framers did not feel you had a right to do this? I am pretty sure they were the type of people that will fight for what is right. Maybe you have some tidbit of history that shows they do not want you to be able to protect yourself.
I'm not sure what people "want" necessarily determines what is a guaranteed right. They can amend the Constitution to have that right specifically enumerated and there is a process for doing that. Alternatively, we can get into the argument...where are those words in the Constitution vs. that's what the Framers intended.
Please explain how to get all the guns away from criminals. Otherwise looks sort of stupid to imply that I am stupid to believe it would be difficult and very close to impossible to do.
There was a British Member of Parliament [MP] that said something pretty nifty. I'm sorry I don't remember his name. But, he said..."Every complex social problem has a simple solution....and it's wrong."
Part of the problem is that people on both sides of any issue pretend that there is some silver bullet that solves the problem; the opposition notes that the solution will not solve the problem by itself. Hence don't do it. Let's wait until the silver bullet comes. Compound that with the expectation that "the solution" should solve the problem in let's say 6 months or less.
Causes of deaths are rather interesting in perspective. My original post on this subject was on the 13th; it's now the 16th. On average, 82 people die every day from gunshots. ~246 people are dead while we've been pissing about "rights". And you're correct; more people die in car accidents than by gunshot wounds. But that's not the highest cause of death. Look up deaths caused by medical errors on the part of doctors. Makes auto deaths look small. But what is the main legislative effort wrt doctors...limit their liability.
Back to gun deaths...let's look at it from the small perspective. You're worried about having a gun to protect yourself, when your real worry should be driving and your doctor? Does that make sense? On the other hand, how many people die from marijuana each year. I think it's zero. But that is illegal. Marijuana, in pursuit of happiness, illegal.
jttmab |
