I'm against "sin taxes" in any form. To me this would set a really bad precedent in regards to how the government can attack rights.
Not unless you're prepared to argue the validity of the Constitution, and if you are, you've got a few hundred years of precedent to deconstruct. The US in it's current incarnation will fall before that document does in any significant way.
I guess thats what amendment means!Everything within the Constitution is subject to change.
So you really believe that if government didn't exist you would not have any natural rights simply being alive on the planet?Not sure how those rights are not given to you by the government. You have them because they are in the Constitution. The constitution was written by, and is protected by your countries political machinery.
Those rights are only "unalienable" by agreement, there's nothing intrinsic or natural about them.
Again, it's not stating which rights are granted, it's stating which rights are inalienable and thus cannot be taken by the US Government. If you want to twist that into stating 'thus it's granting those rights' you're free to do so, but that's not what the Constitution states. It's very, very specifically worded in such a way to define the rights as part of being Human, and define what US Government is permitted to do.So you're saying that the constitution says which rights are natural rights, and it says that natural rights can't be taken away. But you don't take this to mean that the constitution is granting those rights. Even though it specifically says which ones it's granting you.
A right of the people, shall not be infringed by the Government. That's the literal statement.A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I guess thats what amendment means!
This, a sentient being has natural rights by virtue of being alive. The government can restrict some, for the betterment of society. Per the US constitution, removing their means of defending themselves via the weapons of the age is not one of those things.So you really believe that if government didn't exist you would not have any natural rights simply being alive on the planet?
Most of those are further restrictions on the government based on further conversations after the Constitution was developed, 2A was one of them.Interesting to note that the 'Bill of Rights' are the indeed amendments. Why weren't these 'unalienable' rights added in the beginning?
Does a wolf have natural rights? A deer?So you really believe that if government didn't exist you would not have any natural rights simply being alive on the planet?
Yes, the Constitution can be amended, but it's a very bold change to state that instead of people having an innate right to defend themselves, they now no longer do.
So if the 'right' becomes affordable because of the 'sin tax', it's an attack against rights. What if a person can't afford the 'right' to begin with? Maybe society should provide the 'right' to everyone that can't afford it then.
Interesting to note that the 'Bill of Rights' are the indeed amendments. Why weren't these 'unalienable' rights added in the beginning?
The problem is smoking tobacco is not codified in the Constitution but the right to bear arms is. More specifically the government is not supposed to infringe on it. If you tax it too much, it will be deemed a de-facto infringement and be unconstitutional.That's a good point. I don't think we can get rid of guns and have long since stopped calling for it as it's time wasting and useless. However, the right to do anything doesn't mean it can't be discouraged via other means. Hell, we tax the living crap out of tobacco and it's worked wonders to reduce it's use. Maybe we should start taxing the living hell (3, 4, 5...more? times) of firearms, especially the assault type. As in tobacco, some of the money should be given to victims for treatment of 'attacks' and the likes.
To a person under attack, probably. You better believe, if a situation arose where my life was under threat from a hostile entity that had $capability, I would be more than happy to use $capability against that entity, regardless of damage potential.Does a right to self defence include
any and every available method?
Yeah, they do, the right to exist, not be caged, not be forced to do what they don't want to do. They're imbued with those rights by virtue of the fact they can defend themselves and fight for their own sentience. Any who impinges upon that right suffers the wrath of that animal, to the best they can defend themselves. In all likelihood, nowadays they'll lose. Not surprisingly, because we have weapons and they do not, want me to explain how this relates to the US citizen mentality now?Does a wolf have natural rights? A deer?
What imbues me with rights and not them in the absence of a legal system?
Sure I would say so unto themselves. A wolf or a deer has a right to fight for his life in the best way they know how.Does a wolf have natural rights? A deer?
What imbues me with rights and not them in the absence of a legal system?
Yes, let's discuss the actual content of my post. (which is a reference to an Onion article, by the way)
I said where this REGULARLY happens. Can you please list the other industrialized countries where mass shootings of this sort regularly happen?
Yup, lots of things are just very, very dangerous toys until someone uses them to evil intent. I refuse to look at guns in some other different light, especially as they kill us significantly less than other things no one really cares about.
So who decides what is acceptable to use in the application of an unalienable right and how does that make it an unalienable right?To a person under attack, probably. You better believe, if a situation arose where my life was under threat from a hostile entity that had $capability, I would be more than happy to use $capability against that entity, regardless of damage potential.
For the betterment of society, we've outlawed/severely restricted the availability of certain weapons, but that's mostly because few citizens will argue that the average Joe should have access to Uranium, for instance.
For purposes of 2A, generally the courts decide if the use of a weapon was in self-defense, and in self-defense almost any use of that application is considered acceptable, from fist to knife to gun of any type. Laws may restrict the weapons permitted under normal circumstances, but I don't think there's ever been a case of self defense upturned due to weapon used. If you no-shit used a tank to defend yourself, and it was deemed to be self defense, I'm sure it'd pass the court muster.So who decides what is acceptable to use in the application of an unalienable right and how does that make it an unalienable right?
You already missed the point because you're asking specifically about mass shootings.
I agree, as per what I've stated in this thread, and in the 'toddler shot at daycare' thread, I fully support a true 'militia' membership for gun ownership. I do not, however, know the implications of irregular militia within US cities/states. Might be far worse than what we have. It conjures images of something between resident KKK chapters and the fragmented 'military might is right' imperialism of late Rome.What well regulated militia was the shooter a member of? Some nutjob could shoot up an NRA convention and the NRA would still find ways to rationalize it.
Private citizens do not require access to assault rifles.
Doesn't surprise me. At Sandy Hook someone literally shot up a school of little kids and nothing changed.
The Supreme Court supports Omniarchy, in regards to a one man militia. If you pass all the federal guidelines and rules to owning a firearm. Then, you are a single man militia that happens to be well-enough regulated.What well regulated militia was the shooter a member of?