General Discussion

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,768 posts)

195. The law is, most importantly...

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 01:03 PM

Jul 2012

...a criteria to used in court in the judgement of guilt. I'm quite certain people have been charged and found guilty of screaming "fire" in a crowded theater. Therein lies the proof that they (and we) are free to do so. Everyone has freedom and the ability to abuse that freedom. Criminal abuses will usually result in charges, trials and penalties. On the other hand, in the world of prior restraint, such things as injunctions exist. When subject to an injunction or judgement, no trial to determine guilt takes place. Your compliance is mandated. You have no recourse to a trial or the presumption of innocence. Not complying is contempt of court. You are controlled.

A felon buying a gun from a private party behind the Wal-Mart or from Obama himself is illegal. It can (and does) occur because freedom exists.

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