General Discussion

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)

4. Exactly my point

Reply to sadbear (Reply #1)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:26 AM

Jul 2012

It's not absolute anywhere...if I went and libeled you, you could sue me.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

208 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

No right is absolute [View all] nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 OP

That's funny sadbear Jul 2012 #1

Exactly my point nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #4

And I could get fired for posting shit on facebook. sadbear Jul 2012 #7

There you go nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #10

Do you even know what the First Amendment is? Indydem Jul 2012 #88

That's right. sadbear Jul 2012 #117

Too late. DocMac Jul 2012 #122

My right to go anywhere I please without being hurt is absolute dickthegrouch Jul 2012 #202

Your rights end right at the point mine begin nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #203

Self defense is. AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #2

Actually not even self defense is nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #12

Actually it is. AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #29

That is why castle doctrine nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #93

Since the right to self-defense is an inherent right, there's no need to be "checked by a da." AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #161

But they still do and still are sent to a DA nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #169

says who, i sure as hell dont like the idea that someone else thinks they should tell me my rights loli phabay Jul 2012 #3

So you think the first Ammendment is absolute? nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #6

im not sure if your accusing me and my family of being thieves or not. loli phabay Jul 2012 #17

The only way a background check nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #23

well if the people of my state want that then no problem if not then no background check loli phabay Jul 2012 #36

So if the Feds close that major loophole nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #47

problem with the feds doing it is no one would be happy loli phabay Jul 2012 #55

As long as the NRA has the power it has nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #63

why, each state has its own standards on weapons, i would hate to have to go by frinstance NY city loli phabay Jul 2012 #104

If you had a federal standard that required a background check nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #107

Give it up. DocMac Jul 2012 #133

???????? loli phabay Jul 2012 #138

Please pay attention. I asked a question.. DocMac Jul 2012 #144

sorry not sure what you were getting at loli phabay Jul 2012 #145

So, you know what they do? nt DocMac Jul 2012 #146

you know i wasnt thinking background checks, for some reason i was thinking wall furnishings loli phabay Jul 2012 #148

Not to worry. DocMac Jul 2012 #176

Yes, the 1st Amendment is absolute for example freedom of speech. discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2012 #189

So you would have no issue nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #190

A person in the registry... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2012 #191

Well the best known is I cannot scream fire in a crowded theater nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #192

The law is, most importantly... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2012 #195

So by that logic, why bother with limits nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #197

I am not advocating anarchy. discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2012 #198

Confusing reasonable controls nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #199

Don't worry. discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2012 #200

State and federal governments will determine your rights to 1/16" Mopar151 Jul 2012 #114

I think this misses the point... ethereal1 Jul 2012 #5

How is a background check nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #8

SLIPPERY SLOPE MAN, SLIPPERY SLOPE! Scootaloo Jul 2012 #13

Ah thanks for the perfect example nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #16

If you could peep into the thoughts of a gun nut... Scootaloo Jul 2012 #68

Why I avoid that forum nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #73

I tried! Scootaloo Jul 2012 #81

The FACTS of the matter are.. 99Forever Jul 2012 #19

There are 223 million firearms in America. Indydem Jul 2012 #92

Bullshit. 99Forever Jul 2012 #126

His mother was the first line of defense. DocMac Jul 2012 #140

I'm sorry, what? mzteris Jul 2012 #187

How was he going to set up that elaborate booby trap in malaise Jul 2012 #180

Our RIGHT TO LIFE... 99Forever Jul 2012 #9

There you are entering into another concept nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #14

Yes because by banning others from carrying firearms JeepJK556 Jul 2012 #21

Save it for the teabaggers and freepers... 99Forever Jul 2012 #28

Yes. JeepJK556 Jul 2012 #57

Keep it personal, would you pass a background check? nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #30

huh? JeepJK556 Jul 2012 #60

Then closing the background check nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #77

And for all of us who do not carry guns...we can't defend ourselves? AllyCat Jul 2012 #163

Our rights are only what the USSC says they are. madinmaryland Jul 2012 #11

You are wrong. Zanzoobar Jul 2012 #15

Really? nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #18

I would rather you explain to me how my right to life is not absolute Zanzoobar Jul 2012 #22

If your right to life is absolute, then isn't everyone's? sadbear Jul 2012 #25

Yes Zanzoobar Jul 2012 #31

So I should read that you would not pass a background check? nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #26

I am asking you if my right to life is absolute. Zanzoobar Jul 2012 #34

Is my right to life absolute? nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #39

Your position is that no right is absolute Zanzoobar Jul 2012 #46

Actually even that is not absolute nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #52

They, nonetheless have their right to life. Zanzoobar Jul 2012 #64

I guess you have read a tad too much Locke nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #66

I am avoiding nothing. Zanzoobar Jul 2012 #67

And the drum roll continues nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #71

When, and if, you ever get around to it Zanzoobar Jul 2012 #74

Doesn't the death penalty prove your right to life is not absolute? Marr Jul 2012 #102

No. Zanzoobar Jul 2012 #108

An "abridgement" of what? Marr Jul 2012 #112

None, as far as I can tell. Zanzoobar Jul 2012 #118

By that logic, death is but an 'abridgement' -n/t coalition_unwilling Jul 2012 #170

If you employ the strictest definition, that is true. n/t Zanzoobar Jul 2012 #206

A background check is merely abridgement not infringement of the right. There is nothing in that JDPriestly Jul 2012 #171

If you are a man, you can be called for the draft (which can be recommenced at the will of Congress) JDPriestly Jul 2012 #162

Your right to life is not absolute. Kill someone. and defend your life as best you will, but... freshwest Jul 2012 #86

It doesn't matter what the world thinks Zanzoobar Jul 2012 #96

Ok this is comical at this point nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #98

Comical. Yes. Zanzoobar Jul 2012 #100

Sorry, but no way, if you think you can do as you please and never be held to account. freshwest Jul 2012 #142

Actually, your right to life is not absolute. JDPriestly Jul 2012 #159

Try to point a gun at a police officer. 2ndAmForComputers Jul 2012 #70

That would be considered abridgement. Zanzoobar Jul 2012 #78

Rights are a creation of society... white_wolf Jul 2012 #20

Another fig leaf of tyranny Zanzoobar Jul 2012 #24

Tell me, where do rights come from? white_wolf Jul 2012 #33

Yes. The dawn of time. Zanzoobar Jul 2012 #38

Rights are granted by life. white_wolf Jul 2012 #44

Everything that is alive has an inherent right to life Zanzoobar Jul 2012 #58

Now we are talking semantics. white_wolf Jul 2012 #62

Nonetheless, I have the right. Zanzoobar Jul 2012 #65

What makes you think that? white_wolf Jul 2012 #72

A very good example. Zanzoobar Jul 2012 #76

Where do rights come from? white_wolf Jul 2012 #79

I can, without question, say they are granted by life. Zanzoobar Jul 2012 #80

No, I simply do not accept your views on rights. white_wolf Jul 2012 #83

OK. I'll make it easy for you. Zanzoobar Jul 2012 #84

Society gives you the right to self-defense provided that your belief that you need to use JDPriestly Jul 2012 #174

You can kill flies with your bare hands, but anything larger and wilder than a house cat might be a JDPriestly Jul 2012 #173

A human is a social animal. We cannot survive to our third year of life without JDPriestly Jul 2012 #172

"Inheirent Rights" are nonsense on stilts. Odin2005 Jul 2012 #89

I have no clue who Jeremy is Zanzoobar Jul 2012 #91

Bentham was a great English progressive philosopher from the late 1700s. Odin2005 Jul 2012 #99

So, was your remark another fallacy? Zanzoobar Jul 2012 #101

Even more funny since you are all but directly nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #105

I've recently started reading John Rawls. He is interesting. white_wolf Jul 2012 #109

Been going over Derrida nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #111

Isn't Derrida's work just word salad trying to sound profound? Odin2005 Jul 2012 #123

Nope, deconstruction has it's place nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #129

No it wasn't. white_wolf Jul 2012 #106

I don't have to offer evidence Zanzoobar Jul 2012 #110

Even Locke did not get that sloppy nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #113

I have never read Locke. Zanzoobar Jul 2012 #115

That explains it nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #132

Again, no clue. Zanzoobar Jul 2012 #136

What can I say? nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #137

Hmm, that sounds very similar to the what Christians say when you ask for evidence about their god. white_wolf Jul 2012 #119

You are reaching. Zanzoobar Jul 2012 #130

How am I reaching? white_wolf Jul 2012 #135

I am not sure how we've strayed. Zanzoobar Jul 2012 #141

EPIC LOGIC FAIL! Odin2005 Jul 2012 #120

I don't think that is even good enough to be a fallacy. white_wolf Jul 2012 #127

Then answer the question. Zanzoobar Jul 2012 #131

What question? Odin2005 Jul 2012 #143

You came in kinda late Zanzoobar Jul 2012 #147

I answered your question, but... white_wolf Jul 2012 #150

You don't have a right to defenfd your life? Zanzoobar Jul 2012 #152

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. white_wolf Jul 2012 #156

I could nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #160

Of course not. Odin2005 Jul 2012 #153

No, I was just sourcing the quote. Odin2005 Jul 2012 #116

The quote is amorphous. Zanzoobar Jul 2012 #124

"Unalienable rights" are a special case, not a creation of society bhikkhu Jul 2012 #40

We are essentially getting to a metaphysical debate at this point. white_wolf Jul 2012 #50

A human baby cannot sur JDPriestly Jul 2012 #175

Rights... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2012 #154

A background check is certainly reasonable bhikkhu Jul 2012 #27

Bingo. And I gave the example of the Whiskey Rebellion nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #35

And we already have them, nationwide. Lizzie Poppet Jul 2012 #56

The 2A is a creature of SCOTUS. Loudly Jul 2012 #32

It's a creature of 150 years. nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #37

Right on the money!! young_at_heart Jul 2012 #49

If you mean the Senate has advise and consent on appointments Loudly Jul 2012 #51

I am really starting to not like the 2nd amendment "protectors". Kalidurga Jul 2012 #41

And the 2A "enemies" gejohnston Jul 2012 #139

One should be required to have liability insurance and pass a test Tumbulu Jul 2012 #42

While I agree nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #54

You're being far too kind to them... Comrade_McKenzie Jul 2012 #43

Excellent ideas! Tumbulu Jul 2012 #48

why create a new tax gejohnston Jul 2012 #178

Is there an absolute right to healthcare? cherokeeprogressive Jul 2012 #45

Who tells you the 2nd is absolute? aikoaiko Jul 2012 #53

Read the posts nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #59

States are already permitted to require background checks on private sales at gun shows. aikoaiko Jul 2012 #186

But not all nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #188

Like I said, it is not so clear that Federal law can address this constitutionally. aikoaiko Jul 2012 #193

Yup, and given that Smith and Wesson does nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #194

*snort* Have you read DU in the past 24 hours? krispos42 Jul 2012 #61

Sadly I agree with you nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #69

Even if the Brady campaign got everything they wanted, the killings would continue krispos42 Jul 2012 #82

Ending the war on drugs is a reasonable goal nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #85

Background checks for all? krispos42 Jul 2012 #181

Well I guess you will also take the College of Trauma nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #184

"Pretty much everybody here would agree this instant to outlaw all civilian gun ownership" - No. 2ndAmForComputers Jul 2012 #75

I wouldn't support that either, mostly because it's not feasible. Comrade_McKenzie Jul 2012 #90

I've been reading the threads krispos42 Jul 2012 #182

But not all nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #185

"An awful lot of people" != "Pretty much everybody" 2ndAmForComputers Jul 2012 #201

I salute you DonCoquixote Jul 2012 #87

Rights are the creation of society. Odin2005 Jul 2012 #94

"We average 20 mass shootings a year" Tejas Jul 2012 #95

I could cite FBI nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #97

Much better than citing Repubs sucking on the Joyce Foundation teat. Tejas Jul 2012 #121

In other words nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #125

In other words, citing the FBI would be an excellent choice. Tejas Jul 2012 #149

Yup, you will not answer the question nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #151

You asked about citing the FBI, I say great idea, what the hell is wrong with you? Tejas Jul 2012 #157

They already have a federal backgroung check. obliviously Jul 2012 #204

Do 40% of all gun sales are not background checked nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #205

Where is your proof? obliviously Jul 2012 #207

Harvard nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #208

"We average 20 mass shootings a year" zappaman Jul 2012 #103

so absolute, NFA is being struck down as we speak? gejohnston Jul 2012 #128

Well, will ask you nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #134

Whenever I buy a gun from a dealer, I go through a background check. jleavesl Jul 2012 #164

Good, but there is a loophole nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #166

Just because Brady claims the FBI said it, does not mean the FBI said it. gejohnston Jul 2012 #165

So why are we arguing? nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #167

I didn't know we were gejohnston Jul 2012 #179

It is called one, is it not? nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #183

My high school social studuies teacher mzteris Jul 2012 #155

My civics teacher said that often nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #158

I think I'll start a campaign.... ProfessionalLeftist Jul 2012 #168

Great post, K&R Scuba Jul 2012 #177

I think background checks aren't effective because Liberal Gramma Jul 2012 #196