HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » What other civil rights s...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 11:42 AM

What other civil rights should be ABSOLUTE?

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by SunsetDreams (a host of the General Discussion forum).

If the 2nd Amendement allows me to carry a bazooka it seems pretty harmless to let me gather with other likeminded people to petition my government for a redress of grievances.

It almost seems like we're gonna need to carry bazookas to peacefully assemble without having our heads bashed in these days.

17 replies, 1163 views

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to tk2kewl (Original post)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 11:48 AM

1. When even Scalia says guns can be regulated, it is hard to say the 2A is absolute.

Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Supreme Court's most vocal and conservative justices, said on Sunday that the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons.

"It will have to be decided in future cases," Scalia said on Fox News Sunday. But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also "locational limitations" on where weapons could be carried, the justice noted.

When asked if that kind of precedent would apply to assault weapons, or 100-round ammunition magazines like those used in the recent Colorado movie theater massacre, Scalia declined to speculate. "We'll see," he said. '"It will have to be decided."


http://news.yahoo.com/scalia-guns-may-regulated-100352809.html

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tk2kewl (Original post)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 11:51 AM

2. a) Gun rights aren't "absolute" ... b) this thread belongs in the gun forum

 

The supreme court has ruled items such as Assault Rifles, sawed off shotguns, SMGs, grenades, short barreled rifles, silencers, etc can be subject to tight control... infact, they are. See the 1932 National Firearms Act. It makes owning items such as mentioned above very difficult.

The premise of your OP is not only factually incorrect, it is stupid. It's also in the wrong discussion group.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #2)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 11:58 AM

3. A) Might as well be B) You're probably right

C) Pretty lame to resort to calling me "stupid"

D) In practice it seems to be way more difficult to protest without being assaulted than it is to get a gun. That is my point.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tk2kewl (Reply #3)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 12:31 PM

9. Called the "premise of the OP" stupid... not the original poster.

 

reading comprehension, FTW

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #9)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 12:34 PM

10. doubling down on the douchebagery

nice

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #2)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 12:16 PM

7. Thank you, Gungeon PD.

Your concern is duly noted.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tk2kewl (Original post)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 12:00 PM

4. A strawman, topic inappropriate post in GD is no way to start the day.

expected lock in 3.....2.....1....

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #4)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 12:05 PM

5. I share the OPs frustration that the right to assemble isn't more absolute

And don't understand why the 2nd amendment gets so much more attention and defense than the right to assemble and the right to speak. And the right to worship, when it comes right down to the ignorant Christianists that are blocking the construction of mosques.

I think it's a valid question, but I'm sure it will be sequestered into the gungeon when the gun worshippers, who are the only people who ever go there, will jump all over it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Patiod (Reply #5)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 12:09 PM

6. thanks for the support

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Patiod (Reply #5)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 12:17 PM

8. Probably because the right to keep and bear arms is much more restricted than the right to assemble.


I don't many of the restrictions that inhibit the people's ability to assemble, but that right is not nearly as boxed in as the right to keep and bear arms.

Plus, most of us agree on the right to assemble, but there are Democrats who would restrict the right to keep and bear arms even more or ban firearms completely. This leads to vigorous discussion.

Can you imagine if someone posted that we should eliminate the right to assemble? Or ban the right to assemble in public? Imagine several. And then think about the reaction.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Patiod (Reply #5)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 02:14 PM

14. You seem clueless about the RKBA group

Its clearly the most tolerant group on DU in terms of allowing drive by and trolls to come in, fling some poo and run away. Never would see that in other groups such as LGBT, FOH, etc.

Naming names would be calling thing them out...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tk2kewl (Original post)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 12:36 PM

11. This would be a great topic,

and worth extended discussion, if it was an authentic question, and not about the current inter- and intra- party squabbling over guns.

What civil rights, currently recognized or not, should be absolute?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Reply #11)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 12:40 PM

13. clearly i believe that freedom speech and assembly should be sacrosanct

no matter how many people are gathered together and no matter how load they shout whatever is on their mind they deserve to not be assaulted or provoked by police

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tk2kewl (Reply #13)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 02:28 PM

15. I believe that most civil rights

are limited: nobody has a right to cause harm. So, while I fully support freedom of speech and assembly, I also support the right of non-speakers to travel. For example, I support the right of a woman who wants to enter an abortion clinic to do so completely free of impediment.

While I support the right of any individual or group to express themselves, I also support the right of any individual to refuse to listen. I don't think the right of speech or assembly is a mandate that anyone has to have someone screaming in their face, or their space.

I also sometimes wonder if any PUBLIC form of expression ought to be legally held to a standard of truthfulness, or should be clearly acknowledged as opinion, not "fact," or "truth." That might be a swamp we might not want to travel, but I can attest that too many voting adults don't know, or don't acknowledge, the difference between fact and opinion. I know, because I teach their adolescent children, and have been called into the office by irate parents too many times for suggesting that everything we hear on radio and tv might not be factual.

I also think that the 1st amendment should apply to individual citizens or groups of actual citizens involved in operations of the group, not to corporations.

I'm really interested in civil rights that have not been acknowledged, or not addressed firmly enough, in our Constitution.

For example, I strongly support the right to privacy. I don't think anyone should be able to take, or publish in any way, a picture or video of me without my permission. I think I own the rights to my own image in perpetuity; I think nobody should be able to publish anything I said or wrote privately; I think nobody should be able to call my phone unless I personally gave them both the number and permission; I think no one should take a step off the road onto my property unless invited; whether the law recognizes that right or not.




Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tk2kewl (Original post)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 12:38 PM

12. When did you stop beating your dog?

ie, ask a loaded question, get one in response.

No right is absolute, including the right protected by the second amendment.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tk2kewl (Original post)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 02:34 PM

16. The 1st Amendment appears to not be nearly so worthy of defending as the 2nd.

See the support, even here, or worse, the silence from our elected Representatives eg, not to mention the people, when peaceful, unarmed protesters are nearly beaten to death by robo cops armed to the teeth as if they were in a war zone with a foreign enemy. Hardly a peep from the American people, and total silence from our Elected officials.

I get the premise of your OP. It is clear that our rights under the 1st Amendment have been removed and with hardly a whimper even from the left.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tk2kewl (Original post)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 03:27 PM

17. Locking

Locking

Statement of Purpose

Discuss politics, issues, and current events. No posts about Israel/Palestine, religion, guns, showbiz, or sports unless there is really big news. No conspiracy theories. No whining about DU.


Please consider posting in Gun Control & RKBA group.

Thanks for your understanding

SunsetDreams
GD Host



Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink