What Civil Rights are you willing to give up?

[marym625]

After reading so many posts and replies excusing certain things cops and the government do, I'm very curious about this. Just like the arguments from the time security was "beefed up" at airports and defended, (my favorite response was, "the world is safe from large breasted women) so many of the excuses are a wonder to me.

So I just have these simple questions. What civil rights are you willing to give up? Which amendment are you willing to forego? The First? Fourth?

[cantbeserious]

1. None

eom

[Socal31]

2. ^ That many

[marym625]

3. Neither am I.

But it seems others are willing to throw at least the 4th Amendment in the toilet.

Thank you

[Socal31]

10. I have noticed that people can be absolute..

Until they meet a right they don't care for or is inconvenient at the time.

The same person could be touting the 1st in one thread, then justifying restriction or even abandonment of the 2nd or 4th in another.

Personally it makes it easier on me to just treat them all as something to be very protective over.

[marym625]

15. yep.

I believe that the 2nd Amendment is something that should be debated, minimally. I know that the placement of that comma and the different versions of it has caused it to be used in a different manner than intended. At least in my opinion.

However, other than that, I agree. I don't understand how someone can justify any part of loss of rights in one breath and then use the Bill of Rights to complain about something in another. Which I am already seeing on this post vs another.

[meaculpa2011]

59. Agreed. n/t

[99Forever]

4. The second.

It serves no positive purpose and is responsible for the deaths of many thousands each and every year, and the life changing injury to even more.

[FLPanhandle]

6. Agree.

I think we would all be better off without it.

[hack89]

8. The 2A is not stopping strict gun control

UBCs, AWBs, registration, magazine size limits, licenses are all perfectly constitutional. As it stands right now, the only implicit right the 2A protects is the right to own a handgun in your home for self defense.

The 2A could disappear today and things would not change that much.

[marym625]

9. ok. That one is worthy of looking at throwing away.

I believe that it should be rewritten to accommodate modern times. I don't think that the spirit of it, which I believe was to allow citizens to protect themselves from a militarized government warring on its citizens, should be completely thrown out.

Gonna have to give that some thought. I hate guns. Hate them. In general, I agree with you.

[NutmegYankee]

11. It was for armed citizens to Protect the government

The armed citizenry was intended to be a resource for national defense since we didn't have a standing army. This contrasted with the feudal countries of that time that still prohibited the peasants from having arms.

[marym625]

21. But wasn't it to stop the Federal Government

From dismantling State militia? Which would be a fear of tyranny and the ability to fight the federal government.

[NutmegYankee]

30. It was meant to not allow the government to prohibit arms for citizens.

At that time, only tyrannical forms of government banned citizens from owning arms. As former British subjects, The colonists were used to living under the 1689 English bill of rights which stated "no royal interference in the freedom of the people to have arms for their own defence as suitable to their class and as allowed by law". In the non-classed USA, we allowed all people this right and because we viewed a standing army as a threat to liberty, we decided to rely on the people as our army. A democratic government, a government of the people, should not fear an armed citizenry.

[safeinOhio]

44. the ability to fight the federal government?

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

[marym625]

48. Which was written long after

The second amendment. I was talking about when initially written

[99Forever]

23. Civilized, advanced societies all over the world...

... live without the fear of either being gunned down in their daily lives by gun wielding nutbags or their governments.

Private arsenals are the main excuse for militarizing our police use. Furthermore, any fools that actually think they could resist the overwhelming firepower of the government with their peashooters, isn't living in reality.

[marym625]

32. Very true

And it is your last sentence that allows these gun nuts to try to justify bigger and deadlier weapons.

I don't really know what to say on this one. As I said, I hate guns. But I also think that there was reason for the Amendment that transcends guns. As it is, I agree with you.

[99Forever]

36. I understand Mary.

I wasn't trying to argue with you, just trying to be clear as where my opinion on this is.

I also see someone putting forth the nonsense idea that just because if the second was rescinded, somehow that means We the People "must give" gun culture something in return for removing their deadly toys from them. Balderdash. Each Amendment stands on it's own.

[marym625]

38. Thank you

I feel like I am contradicting myself in this thread about the 2nd Amendment. I probably am. I don't explain myself well very often. I don't know how to say what I am thinking on this well

I don't like that I don't like an amendment in the Bill of Rights.

[world wide wally]

37. It wouldn't hurt to reword the 2A. The interpretation has been so perverted already

[marym625]

40. Most definitely. n/t

[VScott]

76. I agree

Simply shortening it to read"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

To the point, and eliminates any confusion and misinterpretation.

[world wide wally]

98. I know we can do better than that. That is the way it is attempted to be interpreted now...

Hence, the perversion.
I was thinking more about the "well regulated" part.

[NutmegYankee]

105. A lot of people get that part wrong.

It doesn't mean regulated like "rules and regulations", it means regulated as in "good ordered". The intent was for the people to be proficient in their arms so that when called up to defend the country they could be put into action immediately. This stems from the problems we had with militias doing poorly in battle during the Revolutionary war. A lot of them didn't really know how to shoot, the best shots being the frontiersman who were far from the battles. Those who were good shots tended to take on skirmisher tasks with the far superior in accuracy Pennsylvannia/Kentucky rifles.

[hack89]

136. The 2A allows very strict regulation right now

AWBs, UBCs, registration, magazine size limits, licensing, training requirements - all are constitutional right now. The only explicit right you have according to the Supreme Court is the right to own a handgun in your home for self defense.

What can be stricter than that list of regulations?

[Taipan]

107. Actually...

It and all the rights were written so that anyone who reads them, can understand their meaning. The perversions come from declaring that a coma means more then a break in speech. That and society as a whole seemed better educated.

[Taipan]

106. On that subject...

Isn't it the first priority of those advanced societies that wish to begin oppression of their citizens is disarmament? I believe it was Ben Franklin who said something along the lines of "Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who do not."

Also, wasn't the reason given by Yamamoto for being against a US invasion was "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

[99Forever]

116. Let me know how you...

... and your peashooters hold up against drones, missiles, tanks, and a whole bunch more things we don't even know about yet.

[99Forever]

144. A little too deep for you?

The COPS call them arsenals and use it as an excuse to militarize.


Start shooting cops and let me know it works out for you.

[99Forever]

150. You're the one talking...

... "guerrilla warfare" against the government. I highly recommend you edit that personal insult out of that post, this isn't Freeperville and we don't put up with that shit.

[marym625]

166. missed that

Quite a few on here I missed that were auto removed. How could anyone throw a personal insult at you? Don't know what they said but I am positive it was uncalled for.

Amazing how many people, even long time DUers, are just suddenly gone. Some volatile subjects being discussed lately.

[99Forever]

167. Was a troll with 9 posts.

MIRT cleaned up it's mess quite nicely.

[marym625]

168. Have seen a bunch of those lately too.

Trolls that is.

Man, MIRT is just on top of it! (Thanks, MIRT)

[pkdu]

126. Yamamoto?....good military strategist I presume? Nt

[hack89]

137. He was smart enough to know going to war with America was a colossal mistake

and that Japan could never win.

[pkdu]

141. Dec 7th mean anything to you? nt

[hack89]

142. Pearl Harbor

brilliant start to a hopeless war that he opposed the start of because he knew Japan could never win.

[GGJohn]

172. Yeah,

the beginning of the end for Imperial Japan.

[irisblue]

156. and yet, there he was, guiding the Imperial Navy till 4/1943.

He was brilliant, capable, talented, able and very dangerous. His talents were dangerous to the United States. He was a most dangerous enemy.

[nomorenomore08]

165. And in most of those countries, people are still able to own (some form of) firearms.

They just can't walk down the street and buy a high-powered rifle or handgun willy-nilly, like in many parts of the U.S.

It's a measure of how far American gun culture has gone off the deep end, that even federal background checks are seen as tantamount to repealing the 2nd Amendment.

[mwrguy]

55. Shitcan the 2nd

[99Forever]

60. Also my preference, however...

... I could also be pleased with a major restrictive rewrite of it. The insanity has to end.

[hack89]

5. None - Everything in the Bill of Rights is sacrosanct. Nt

[former9thward]

7. None, thank you.

[NutmegYankee]

12. None. And those who do want to give some up deserve none as well. nt

[Socal31]

13. Of course.....

Pretty much a given where this one would end up.

If you are willing to modify or remove a civil right you don't care for, then it is open season on the rest of them as well.

[marym625]

25. yep. n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

14. I can't answer this question ...

as are you asking "what right am I willing to give up totally?" Or, merely, accept being "lessened" ... and then, it would depend on what I/we gained. For example, I would gladly trade having my personal emails/comings and goings monitored, in exchange for an increase in being "kept safe." {Yes, I know that the safety/security nexus is tenuous, and has yet to be definitively established}.

Another example, I have no problem with "Free Speech Zones", even though it is arguably an infringement on "free speech."

[marym625]

16. So you are willing to throw out the 4th Amendment?

Sure sounds like it. At what point is it just warrantless searches and not keeping the country safe in your mind?

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. Again, ...

it depends on the nature of the restriction and what is gained. In my example, I am more willing to accept the monitoring of my emails/telephone calls than I am having the police enter my home without a warrant.

At what point is it just warrantless searches and not keeping the country safe in your mind?

I don't know.

[marym625]

24. Why be OK with either?

I am truly perplexed. You are OK with one so as to stop a further intrusion? Don't you think that giving up any of it makes it easier for the government to take all of it?

[1StrongBlackMan]

31. Because I do not live in an abstract world ...

I realize that I only have the luxury to discuss this topic because to this point, the safety/security balance has been appropriately and reasonably maintained.

No, I do not believe that giving up any of it makes it easier for the government to take all of it. But then, I do not believe that "the Government" is evil.

[marym625]

33. There is a reason for the saying

"Give them an inch and they'll take a mile."

[1StrongBlackMan]

67. Yes ...

It is a simplistic saying meant to describe a distrustful worldview.

I like another saying that reflects my governmental/political worldview: "Trust, but verify!"

[old guy]

74. If you trust,

there will be no need to verify IMO. That saying has never made any sense to me but that's just my interpretation.

[marym625]

79. Sometimes

Simplicity tells it the best. To trust when repeatedly proven something is not trustworthy is a ridiculous way to operate. Sorry.

You know how many terrorist plots have been found by the mass surveillance without warrant? Zero

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

19. Safe from what?

You're more likely to get hit by lightning than have 'terrorists' attack you, so I'm not sure exactly what monitoring your emails and 'comings and goings' is actually making you safer from, or by what minute percentage such increases your 'safety'.

[1StrongBlackMan]

27. While ...

the lightning strike statistic might be true; I would trade having my personal emails monitored, if it would have stopped the Boston Bombing, or break up a meth/crack/extortion operation.

Though you are also correct ... the monitoring of MY email account would do nothing to increase anyone's safety ... because I am not involved in terroristic or other criminal conduct.

[Bluenorthwest]

71. But let's stow the dramatic 'if it would stop a bombing' rhetoric and look at the fact that the FBI

monitored Martin Luther King and they did so because they felt they were keeping America safe. From Dr King and his message. Oddly, King was not making meth or bombs. But they sure as fuck kept tabs on him.
Got any thoughts about that? Is it really ok to bug activists because some racist thinks they are a threat to security? Today, we'd never even find out they had done it.
Personally, I do not support the J Edgars of the world having the right to monitor the Dr Kings of this world.

[1StrongBlackMan]

75. That'snot dramatic rhetoric ...

and I am aware of the abuses that the government has done.

Is it really ok to bug activists because some racist thinks they are a threat to security?

No ... But I said "I would be willing to trade having MY emails ..." and I am under no delusion that I am an "activist" that the government would have any interest in.

Personally, I do not support the J Edgars of the world having the right to monitor the Dr Kings of this world.

Nor, do I; but what about the monitoring the communications of OBL (had he been in the U.S.), or Clive Bundy (and his anti-government crew), or {name a klan member}?

Yes, it is, typically, "liberal" to pontificate about such things, while closing our eyes to real world dangers. And, we can comfortable do so, with the knowledge that we are unlikely to pay any price, when reality meets up with our ideology.

[TheKentuckian]

108. Shamefully authoritarian and fundamentally cowardly perspectives from my point of view.

A direct antithesis to land of the free and home of the brave.

"I have no problem with free speech zones" cannot be reconciled with my values, it sounds like the talk of a cowering subject rather than that of a free citizen.

I'm sorry if that is taken personally and it shouldn't be it as is the point of view I find abhorrent not the person expressing it who I do not know.

[marym625]

109. Well said

Agree 100%

[1StrongBlackMan]

118. I take no offense ...

as I am very comfortable in my recognition of reality. It is easy to call someone else's recognition of reality "shamefully authoritarian" or "fundamentally cowardly" or "talk of a cowering subject" because those doing so have deluded themselves into believe their typing stuff on the internet is "activism" or a grand display of courageous patriotism ... it isn't ... it is typing stuff onto the internet ... stuff we all hope like hell will never be tested.

[TheKentuckian]

123. No, I believe typing stuff on the Internet is expressing my thoughts, as to your reality

it seems like a fearful delusion insistently begging for a reassuring collar in hopes it will chase the fitful dreams away.

Why? It is because the only reality offered is vapor, speculation, and propaganda of voracious security state and complicit corporate media caught in lie after lie over a span of decades.

You are afraid because they want you to be afraid and they want it that way because they profit and gain dominating control based on your fear as it adds to a quivering multitude.

Do not be fooled and cowed into being an obedient and willing slave to the machine.

You aren't facing reality but being broken by a delusion and the same old lies told by the same folks for the same bankrupt reasons.

[1StrongBlackMan]

124. LOL ...

I'm the one afraid, begging for a reassuring collar?

Okay.

[TheKentuckian]

134. Yes, are you not the one that is more than happy to trade away your (and everyone else's) rights

away for safety. Sounds awfully frightened to me. Sounds like an appeal to power that you will trade away freedom for protection.

I don't see anything funny at all. How in the world is this a laughing matter?

[1StrongBlackMan]

138. From the time ...

mankind gathered into collectives (primarily for safety), mankind has trade away "freedom" for safety. An out-growth of that coming together was the formation of government, whose primary function is to ensure the safety of the people. It is the job of government, and the duty of the governed, to ensure that a balance is struck.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

17. In exchange for what?

I'm willing to give up the second, if it also means we can disarm our police, and only let them use firearms in response to criminals who have actually demonstrated that they are carrying firearms.

[1StrongBlackMan]

22. +1 ...

Though I am far more concerned with the focus being disarming Everyone.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

26. I'm mostly against pistol usage.

The long gun 'massacres' might be showy, and a big draw for media attention, but the vast majority of shootings are just folks with pistols.

And I'm fine with people having rifles to hunt and defend themselves and their herds from animal attacks.

[marym625]

28. Wouldn't that be a dream come true

But I don't believe that would ever happen. I also think that even if the second amendment never existed, gun laws would be the same as they are now. Unfortunately.

[ileus]

20. Lots of folks are willing to give up the 2A

As for me and my family we're not willing to give up one...period.

[marym625]

29. Thank you.

I am not either. I would, however, like to have the 2nd Amendment written in a much clearer way. I think the interpretations are too wide and varied.

[Major Nikon]

34. Civil rights and civil liberties are two different things

All civil liberties are compromised in various ways.

Civil rights should never be compromised.

[marym625]

35. Very true. they are different things

Last edited Mon Dec 1, 2014, 01:32 AM - Edit history (1)

And neither should be compromised

[Major Nikon]

45. All civil liberties are regulated in certain ways

For instance, you don't have freedom of movement if you commit a crime and are imprisoned. So there are rational reasons for compromising civil liberties. There's no rational reasons for compromising civil rights.

[NutmegYankee]

46. That freedom of movement is taken by Due Process through the 5th Amendment.

A judge can even order you silenced through due process.

[Major Nikon]

50. Exactly

However, civil rights refer to the right to be treated fairly based on class and should never be compromised by due process or any other process, although it certainly does happen in certain situations like the restrictions on women in combat or limiting selective service requirements only to men.

[NutmegYankee]

52. I don't tend to seperate them.

I see civil rights as protected by the 14th amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Major Nikon]

63. The way I see it is that is the separation

Civil liberties may be traded for other things in certain instances. Civil rights should never be traded for anything even and especially through due process.

The 14th amendment was written after the Civil War and was a watershed for civil rights which were recognized by the founding fathers, but never guaranteed by law prior to the first Civil Rights Act and never constitutionally guaranteed prior to the 14th amendment.

[NutmegYankee]

73. What you consider civil rights are also limited at times.

Look at sex offenders for instance. They are basically second class citizens limited on where to live and occupation, despite many of them having already served their time years prior to the laws being passed. Even that classic of civil rights, voting, can be removed by a felony conviction in several states, sometimes for life. I think we as a society are still a long way from the perfect goal of everyone being equal under the law.

[Major Nikon]

131. That is true, but I'm not sure your example proves it

Voting is not a civil right. Voting is a political right which isn't even guaranteed by the Constitution. Naturally every state establishes the right to vote and subjects that right to certain conditions. Civil rights ideally guarantee those conditions are not abridged by legally protected class.

Certainly civil rights are also limited in practice, but my assertion is they should not be limited by protected class. Civil rights always have been and probably always will be evolutionary.

[TheKentuckian]

110. I don't really understand your construct of which is which.

How do we divine an expendable and tradeable liberty from an incontrovertible right? What is your logic.

To me civil rights are about access (who) to civil liberties (aka what the right actually is), two pieces to the same thing.

[Major Nikon]

114. Those two things don't always overlap

You have the civil liberty to vote and the civil right of that liberty not being denied by class. You do not have a civil liberty of not being fired from a job. You do have the civil right of not being fired from that job because of class.

[TheKentuckian]

122. The civil liberty in your example is the right to equal protection under the law

To not be persecuted for birth traits or lawful exercise of enumerated rights, it is but being applied (rightfully) applied to the workplace.

Then even if granted your example, in your larger framework you are now asserting that the vote is something up for trade or negotiations for whatever speculative bauble of goodness.

I continue to struggle to the point of complete breakdown to sniff out the benefit to the people or even the logic at all.

[Major Nikon]

125. I can't think of any civil right that isn't an example of the right to equal protection

Civil liberties preceded equal protection. There has always been the right to vote, but just not for everyone. Civil rights and equal protection go hand in hand and both emerged at pretty much the same time (post Civil War).

I'm not asserting any civil liberty is "up for trade or negotiations". I'm saying they are all subject to regulation per the will of the people. Civil rights should never be subject to the will of the people.

[TheKentuckian]

127. EXACTLY! This is why we fight for civil rights (access) for all. Logic dictates it!

Decency demands it.

Relaxation that we are all human requires it. Recognizing a person's civil rights is recognizing their humanity and accepting that human's citizenship.

Any limitations are to ensure one person's exercise of their rights do not encumber another's ability to exercise their's. Anything else is a corruption, an erosion, and undoing of the protection of the natural right.

I guess what I fail to understand is how you discern what is a right and what is a liberty or are you saying the principle of equal protection must not be subject to the will of the people but what the protections actually are is up for debate or something else yet still.

It isn't what it said that needs repeating but what has to be yet unsaid that needs to be added to actually understand what you are aiming for and what your current perceptions and positions on these matters are.
This is why I wanted to be clear to you what my logic and perceptions are, to give you a bridge for common language.

[Major Nikon]

129. Civil liberties are and always have been up for debate and always should be

Right or wrong, felony disenfranchisement exists in almost every state to one degree or another. 12 yr old children who are citizens don't get to vote. Provided constitutional guarantees are met, like equal protection, states are on their own to determine what those regulations are and as such are highly subject to the will of the people. I can't think of any civil liberty that isn't subject to some condition and most of those conditions are set at the state level. The absolute right to vote doesn't even exist at the federal constitutional level. If civil rights were subject to the will of the people, segregation and anti-miscegenation laws could and probably would still exist in some states.

[TheKentuckian]

133. Yes, yes but what are you saying is a right and what is a liberty?

How is it discerned, what is the formula?

Are you stating that civil rights are access to and liberties are the actual rights and so are saying that there should be no debate about access to rights but what the rights actually are is up for debate?

[Major Nikon]

135. Civil liberties are rights

All of our civil liberties are subject to regulation by federal and state governments. However, that regulation may not be applied unequally by protected class, which is a civil right.

[marym625]

128. I don't know how I missed all this

Since the reply, initially, was to me

But you all did a great job debating (without getting nasty I might add) so I am just going to keep reading it all.

[Warren Stupidity]

39. americans have demonstrated that they will give up any right in exchange for a promise of safety.

[marym625]

41. yep.

And amazingly, when asked outright they say something different than said in specific circumstances.

[Zorra]

42. I, for one, welcome the increased power and control of our new authoritarian fascist overlords.

Do I need the sarcasm thingee? Please tell me I don't need the sarcasm thingee.

[marym625]

43. Nope. no sarcasm thingy needed

Love the response.

Thank you

[Glassunion]

145. You forgot the sarcasm thingy...

Just sayin'

[Vattel]

47. Whichever rights Obama thinks I should give up. (sarcasm)

[marym625]

49. Loving the sarcastic responses

And I am not being sarcastic. Thank you

[fredamae]

51. None-Why Not Discuss

Expanding/Restoration of Rights, instead?

[marym625]

53. I'm game

I posted this because of so many posts I have seen excusing government intrusion. Even on this post there is at least one.

But I would be happier if the discussion was expansion.

[fredamae]

72. Well, the PTB only

"want" us to think in terms of "sacrifice" while PEACE and Expanding Our ROI on Taxes, Rights is quietly ignored.....we're Totally played when we accept their narrative to Only consider their terms, the terms we're offered as tho the people no longer have any input in or rights to benefit by/from our own government

Isn't it past time WE controlled the discussion?[/b]

If we want to discuss expansion VS contraction? It will be Us who do so, en masse'. It's up to us to walk away from their self serving, greedy narrative and create our own. imo. Period.

[marym625]

81. Well said. Thank you. n/t

[librechik]

54. willing has nothing to do with it. If the PTB want them gone

they will disappear one way or another and there will be nothing we can do about it. Just like now.

[marym625]

56. It's because we allowed it

Imho.

[librechik]

61. They operate in more or less total secrecy

And if you point out their existence, you are laughed away.

They have even more cruel ways to dispatch organized groups, and they ignore the biggest mass protests in history.

They have shut ordinary citizens out of the election process (aside from your vote for Candidate Coke or Candidate Pepsi, the only ones with a chance to "win&quot

How do you propose we stop them?

[marym625]

65. I truly don't know

I wish I did

[easychoice]

57. I have your rights right here

Good Luck

[marym625]

62. I love this piece

And miss George Carlin.

Regardless of this, we are the ones that allow the government to take our rights/privileges.

[treestar]

58. how do you define civil rights?

what if you disagree with Supreme Court decisions on how they can be regulated?

what if you disagree with national security rulings and regulations?

Do you have a civil right to disregard those laws and a right to avoid court procedures to make legal arguments about them?

[marym625]

64. Excellent point

If nothing else, you at least get to fight it. And fight for the right not to lose more rights. And the more we stay silent when faced with things like illegal stops, the Patriot Act, the more we lose.

[easychoice]

69. few people have the resources to launch a legal fight against Uncle Sam

Last edited Sun Nov 30, 2014, 02:23 PM - Edit history (1)

My Lawyer says bring a million bucks.Who has that kind of money laying around to fight a bogus arrest?
As it applies to the average citizen there is no right to petition against government without finding a legal angel.

[marym625]

80. True

Which is why protests, like is happening now, is so important. Though I don't have an answer that I know will work

[easychoice]

87. No one seems to have an answer,that is a bad thing.

We are slaves and they will do what they damned well please when they please.

[marym625]

89. Just saw a sign

From the protests in Hong Kong. It said, "YOU CAN'T KILL ALL OF US"

I don't think we have that kind of commitment here. At least not yet.

[TeeYiYi]

96. I'm not sure that's true...

I'm afraid that 'They CAN kill all of us.'

Let's just hope that 'they' don't decide to. :/

TYY

[TheKentuckian]

66. None and I'm serious about it.

[rock]

68. The good news is

that under the Law one cannot give up their rights; rights are inalienable. Now the bad news: you must actually have a SCOTUS capable of competently interpreting said laws and additionally you need politicians that are willing to see that they are enforced. My point is it's moot to talk about giving them up.

[marym625]

112. True

Except when they are taken and you don't fight for them
I understand what you are saying. I just mean that the more we allow it to happen, the harder it will be to get them back. SCOTUS sure isn't helping lately

[rock]

119. I wasn't disagreeing with you by the way

Sometimes I don't make myself clear. w* gradually took various rights away as he did it bit by bit. The first was speech. If the people don't scream when that happens, the judges, the LEOs, the DAs, and the other politicians just stand around like knots on a log. The only way we (the people) can keep this country a Democracy is by strong action withing the law. If we wait too long the Law will change sufficiently that we'll not be able to do anything about it.

[marym625]

120. I didn't think you were

But I am not the best communicator.

The idea we have "free speech zones" is just so beyond unbelievable.

I watched live stream just yesterday as peaceful protesters were repeatedly maced. They're being arrested for nothing. They're being brutalized for nothing. It is just sad and scary.

[jwirr]

70. None.

[hobbit709]

77. Absolutely none.

[olddots]

78. I personally don't need a gun

nt.

[NutmegYankee]

83. Millions also don't see a reason to vote.

As long as it's voluntary, it OK.

[marym625]

84. Never had one. never will.

I had one pointed at my head when raped. But I will never own a gun.

[NutmegYankee]

86. Sorry you were put through such a horrible experience.

[marym625]

88. Thank you.

It was years ago. I have dealt with it. I think

[marym625]

85. You scared me

I thought you were serious at first.

[ScreamingMeemie]

90. None.

With regard the 2nd Amendment, I will never personally own a gun again, after having several of them in my home for years. No good came of it.

With that said, those rights are there for a reason.

[marym625]

91. Thanks for that

First person I ever heard say that.

I am having trouble explaining my thoughts on the second amendment. But I do believe it is there for a reason. I just don't think that reason has been interpreted correctly in recent history

[sarisataka]

92. None

But if we can return the 4th and 5th Amendments to their rightful status I would be grateful.

[marym625]

93. oh, wouldn't that be nice! n/t

[sadoldgirl]

94. They all should be kept, but

some could be modified, in a way to make it crystal clear that these rights apply

only to a living human person and not to the corporations.

I would also like to change the order somewhat: make the 9th into the first, so
that clean air, water, energy, etc. could be included.

I know: wishful thinking.

[marym625]

95. But it's a lovely wish! n/t

[Taipan]

97. I'm in the "None" grouping as with the other posters above.

I've always read into, at least for the first 10, as the protection of the people from a tyrannical government. I've also assumed that weather I wish to exercise those rights or not are purely up to myself. If I wish to say something peacefully or express my opinion I can do so or not without persecution under the first. Weather I will allow the police to search my home without a warrant but with my consent they could but not without one or the other. If I wish to own a firearm or not is also a personal choice. Others would be trial by my peers, protection against cruel punishment, the limiting of government powers.

I've no problem trying to understand where someone else is coming from by listening to their opinions. I've attended many rallies and tried to see both sides. I do have friends that own firearms and I've no issues with it. I have consented to let the police search my vehicle on one occasion, simply to settle something quickly.

You asked specifically about giving up the first and fourth. I guess if I gave up the first, I wouldn't (couldn't) be able to post a response. And if I did then the thought police would break down my door, legally and abscond with my mac.

Sorry, bad stab at levity.

No, I'm content to keep the bill of rights as they are and to pursue my own happiness (as in the pre-amble)

T.

[marym625]

113. No need for sorry

I got it

Thanks for the reply.

[Doctor_J]

99. these are not simple questions

[NRaleighLiberal]

100. though unrealistic, it would be the second - otherwise, keep the rest.

[Taipan]

101. How would the others be kept?

Just curious, but is it not the second which protects the others? As I posted in #97, weather you exercise a right or not, it's your personal prerogative but that right is there.

[NRaleighLiberal]

102. It would require other massive changes which many wouldn't accept - which is why it is unrealistic.

And my views on it are personal, and rooted in where and how I grew up. I've neither needed, shot or wanted a gun.

I tend to agree with Michael Moore - the country's obsession with guns is reflective of the sickness of our culture and embedding of such fear. As in we are scared shitless, which is why we allow so much erosion of our rights (as in post 911)

[Taipan]

104. I see.

That is your prerogative and I'm sure your reasons are well founded on a personal level. What about those that are in the opposite camp? I don't mean the total gun nuts that drool over the latest AR add on but others that gravitate towards them as a hobby or sport. I ask as I said that I try and see both sides of an issue. The collectors, clay shooters, hunters and even olympians. Should they not have a chance to pursue happiness?

[logosoco]

103. I think I have already given up my right to party, despite the fight to obtain it.

I can't even stay up past 10 PM anymore!


(great thread, by the way, we need to keep this discussion in the forefront).

[marym625]

115. Me too!

Sucks, doesn't it?

Thanks for the levity

Thanks. I think we do. I am enjoying the discussions.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

111. I LIKE this topic a lot!!!!

Last edited Sun Nov 30, 2014, 07:37 PM - Edit history (1)

Two come to mind

I. Freedom of Assembly, I feel like I've given it up to some extent

Hear me out. I have participated in protests here in Chicago, most recently with HCAN, with SEIU, with teacher unions, against NATO, against the banksters, against corporate tax dodgers. Have posted several pictures here. The NATO demonstration was exceptional, so I'll just talk about the others.

For each of the others, I was (1) unemployed, and (2) the demonstrations, with one exception, didn't inconvenience anyone. That exception being a march right into Wells Fargo bank in downtown Chicago and filling it up to it's gills with demonstrators holding signs. That was pretty cool But aside from that, we were invisible. The police told us where to march and we stayed out of everyone's way.

So what makes me feel like I've given up my right to assemble? Employment. I'm afraid of missing work. I'm afraid of getting arrested. For the most part, I've believed the demonstrations are too regulated to be effective. I just makes me feel like we've given up too much.


II. Right to Privacy

I want to use the phone, computer, credit cards, social media, etc.. I pretty much willfully and knowingly signed my life away. I assume using DU means we've all knowingly given up our privacy whether we like it or not.

[marym625]

117. I understand.

Been there. Done that. In Chicago.

But I think the protests since the Wilson debacle are different. For instance, protesting the Iraq war. The first ones weren't already permitted. Over 200 people were arrested. We shut down lake shore drive, though not really on purpose. We were pushed there. The next one was permitted March down Wacker to Michigan. Boring. Traffic rerouted
Didn't start until after rush hour.

But what is happening now is different. And it's making a difference. Spontaneous protests meant to inconvenience and bring attention.

We'll have to meet up at the next one. But, in my old age, I'm not very good at the cold weather anymore

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

121. :)

[True Blue Door]

130. 3rd Amendment. I'm willing to quarter soldiers in my house if necessary.

Otherwise, fuck 'em. Fuck 'em right in the ear if they ask to violate anything else.

[marym625]

132. Well you might be willing to

But I refuse to quarter soldiers. I'll half them, I'll eighth them, I will even whole one or two. But I will be damned if I will quarter one!

I was waiting for this. Glad someone said it. Thank you. You ended my night with a laugh

[Donald Ian Rankin]

139. The USA should repeal the 2nd amendment.

Replace it with "Armed militias being the worst possible threat to the security of a free state, the government shall be permitted to take steps to regulate the ownership and baring of arms".

[marym625]

140. hmm.

I think it should be rewritten. Don't think what you have would ever fly.

Actually, yes I do. They'll never do anything to change it. Sadly.

[hack89]

157. The government already has the power to strictly regulate the ownership of guns

AWBs, UBCs, registration, licensing, training requirements, magazine size limits are all constitutional right now.

The impediments to gun control are political and cultural, not legal. There is simply not enough public support for draconian gun control. Repealing the 2A wil not change that basic fact.

[Glassunion]

147. You speak of rights as if we have them

The wealthy have rights. The rest of us don't. We have the privileges that they choose to give us for now.

The police will continue to murder under the blanket of security
The police will continue to invade our homes without warrant under the blanket of security
The police will continue to stifle our redress under the blanket of security
The police will continue to "coerce" the "truth" under the blanket of security
The military will spread these privileges to the rest of the world under the blanket of security

If you think you have rights you are sorely mistaken.

[marym625]

153. no. I know you are right

But I am not willing to go down without a fight. Even though we are far gone already, we are the people. They have the guns, we have the numbers. (Thank you Jim Morrison)

[AverageJoe90]

149. If I absolutely HAD to choose.....

It would be the Second Amendment. I mean, to be honest, I'm actually fascinated by guns myself.....have been for a long time.....but if giving up the 2A, and re-placing decisions on the legality of gun ownership to lie in the hands of the states instead, allowed for a huge reduction in murders, etc., then I'd ultimately accept that.

[marym625]

154. interesting

I don't know that I would want some States deciding that. Though they pretty much already do.

As someone pointed out up the thread, the gun laws wouldn't change if the 2nd Amendment didn't exist

Thanks for your thoughts!

[muntrv]

152. Zero.

[marym625]

155. You're not alone.

Thank goodness

[burrowowl]

158. None!

and bring Habeas Corpus back!

[marym625]

161. I should count all the voters for none

All the get rid of the 2nd

I believe you're the first "bring Habeas Corpus back"

[burrowowl]

169. Yes Habeas Corpus

has an old tradition and I am amazed no one was upset about. Sad!

[marym625]

174. I agree

Funny you brought it up when you did. I had just watched "Whose Life Is It Anyway" The play uses Habeas Corpus to allow the main character the right to die.

Here's another thank you to GWB.

[struggle4progress]

159. The material question is: what are you willing to organize to accomplish?

Expressing opinions on the internet is a nice hobby -- but it doesn't really equate to fighting for one's rights

[marym625]

160. Love this kind of reply

For now, I am willing to attend rallies, protests, get signatures on petitions, as long as it's warm out. And if I have an extra buck, I will throw it in to something I feel is a worthy cause because extra bucks are few and far between.

I spent decades organizing events working with NOW, MoveOn, the GLN and other organizations. Sometimes just a bunch of us doing it on our own. The first presidential campaign i volunteered for was McGovern. The last was Obama.

This was a question for people on DU because of posts and replies I have seen where people have dismissed infringement of rights and liberties.

Maybe some day I will have the energy and time to be part of the movement that moves the movement. But not right now.

What are you doing?

[lonestarnot]

162. Not one, as one cannot give up a right.

Out of one's jurisdiction.

[sabrina 1]

163. Not one! None!

[akbacchus_BC]

164. You should not give up your civil rights! Then they win, never ever give up!

[akbacchus_BC]

170. Why would anyone be willing to give up any civil rights that their

foreparents got killed for? Frankly no, we have to march on and change the status quo. The KKK should not be in the police force in America. The KKK hates people of colour and arpaio will be welcoming shits like Wilson pretty soon.

[marym625]

173. got me

It seems either people are not being completely honest with themselves or none of the people I saw on other posts, excusing illegal stops and the like, haven't replied.

Not sure where the KKK came into this. I hate them and agree they have no place in law enforcement. But as far as their rights go, I would to help protect their rights as I would my own. Because it's all the same things.

Where are you from? I wasn't aware that the KKK, at least in that form, existed outside the US.

[bobGandolf]

171. None.....it's why I bitch so much n/t

[marym625]

175. Keep up the bitching!

I don't know of any other time in our history that our rights and liberties have been taken away at the rate and scope they have since 2000.

I am far from a historian. Perhaps there was such a period of time. Perhaps when Lincoln suspended the Sixth Amendment, others were suspended as well. But with the Patriot Act, the Military Act (can't think of the name) suspending Habeas Corpus, and more, has all happened since Bush.

Note that it was Burrowowl that brought up Habeas Corpus

[CBGLuthier]

176. In 25 days i will be giving up many of them. I think I will survive.

I am leaving this country on the 28th. I have no plans to ever return. I am moving to Mauritius. I will no longer be "protected" by the bill of rights that used to be in force in this country yet somehow I will feel safer and freer.

[marym625]

177. What a sad statement

I go between extreme anger and just plain being sad.

I wish you luck. And I hope that we can change things to at least a point where the USA will be the place we used to be. A place you might want to return

Were you born and raised here?

[CBGLuthier]

178. Yes. I am an American citizen.

born and raised. I have a had a dislike for this country's inability to mature for many years and my wife wanted to move to Mauritius. One day after arguing with my brother-in-law over his not believing in the rights of people to marry who they wish I came home and told her lets do it.

To be honest i am scared shitless about the whole thing and I know that where we are moving is no paradise of equality but at least they do manage to have a more pluralistic society. In a few years we may relocate to Europe, probably France.

[marym625]

179. I don't blame you

I have been seriously considering the move myself. Each time I am convinced it is time, I am then told how I am giving up and that I should stay and fight.

14 years. When is it clear, we lost?

I don't blame you for being scared. I wish you all the luck.

I will say that part of the reason I haven't left is weather related. The places I can easily go, are cold. I hate the cold! I know, terrible reason