NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aea8e3OzddM

well, this was revealing
college education? right
health care? right
living wage? right
gun ownership? privilege :eek::mad:



okay......right.......who is not getting my vote?

Mr. Edwards.

one of those actually is a right........*pulls out her pocket constitution*

anyone else disturbed? (of course not.)

Nope, I live in England. We don't have rights that can't be curbed.

¬_¬

Nope, I live in England. We don't have rights that can't be curbed.

¬_¬

how sad for you.

well, this was revealing
college education? right
health care? right
living wage? right
gun ownership? privilege :eek::mad:

Um, sounds a pretty good list to me.
Although I'm not sure I'd trust many people with guns, but I don't think that's the point of the thread.

Socialism == bad, that's the point, yes?

True. Unwritten constitution with no Bill of Rights. Sucks.

True. Unwritten constitution with no Bill of Rights. Sucks.

And yet oddly, you haven't become a totalitarian state.

Damn. And I've been a loyal Edwards supporter all this time.

Well that's that. He's lost my vote.

I'd still vote for him over Hilary.

Seems like he's got it in the right order, no matter what the law may say.

Um, sounds a pretty good list to me.
Although I'm not sure I'd trust many people with guns, but I don't think that's the point of the thread.

Socialism == bad, that's the point, yes?

I think the point of the thread was the fact that everything he listed as a "right" is not technically a right, but rather a nice-to-have. The one thing he listed as a privilege is the only one that is a "right"...

True. Unwritten constitution with no Bill of Rights. Sucks.

You're not familiar with the European Convention, then?

I've decided that, despite being an uber-liberal, I'm probably supporting Ron Paul.

And yet oddly, you haven't become a totalitarian state.

Wanna bet? Reid, Ex-Communist Stalinist Bully Extraordinaire is well on his way to rooting out whatever percieved unwritten rights we do have. Comrade Brown will no doubt welcome his endeavours.

We already have more surveilance cameras per capita than any other nation, and the government is forcing upon us ID cards. Two words.

Big Brother.

why won't youtube and a host of other websites work for me the last few days. i keep getting a "firefox can't find the server" message. very annoying.

I think the point of the thread was the fact that everything he listed as a "right" is not technically a right, but rather a nice-to-have. The one thing he listed as a privilege is the only one that is a "right"...

I was viewing the list as a statement of ideals, rather than of law. I'm not an American, and I'm not familiar with your (?) "rights" according to law.

Although, obviously, I've became aware of the US... Over-enthusiasm with firearms.

Edit:
You're not familiar with the European Convention, then?

Ooh, the one that some* people desperately want rid of?

*insert derogatory comment of choice here

I've decided that, despite being an uber-liberal, I'm probably supporting Ron Paul.

I have no idea who this Ron Paul is...but every time you folks write his name, I think you're talking about this gorgeous individual (http://www.bubblestheartist.com/fans/rupaul-autograph.jpg).

I think the point of the thread was the fact that everything he listed as a "right" is not technically a right, but rather a nice-to-have. The one thing he listed as a privilege is the only one that is a "right"...

thank you lurker!:D

You're not familiar with the European Convention, then?

Like our government is going to let that get in the way. As far as Europe goes, the UK only has it's toe dipped into the pond.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aea8e3OzddM

well, this was revealing
college education? right
health care? right
living wage? right
gun ownership? privilege :eek::mad:



okay......right.......who is not getting my vote?

Mr. Edwards.

one of those actually is a right........*pulls out her pocket constitution*

anyone else disturbed? (of course not.)

*Raises hand* I am... That last one...

O the unfortunate irony... :(

i cant watch videos...

but im fine with the list.

why?

because we need education and healthcare and a living wage (although that one always sets off alarms because of its potentially disastrous meaning)

and

no matter that HE says "gun ownership is a privelege" the constitution disagrees with him so its irrelevant.

Seems he doesn't know what country he's hoping to get re-elected in. Never, ever try to separate Americans and their guns, or even imply that you might be ok with someone trying to do so.

Seems like he's got it in the right order, no matter what the law may say.

No shit. Though I'd put health care and living wage above college education.

Like our government is going to let that get in the way. As far as Europe goes, the UK only has it's toe dipped into the pond.

Well...no. The convention has full force of law, and any individual has recourse (through the Human Rights Act) to sue in a British court under it.

I have no idea who this Ron Paul is...but every time you folks write his name, I think you're talking about this gorgeous individual (http://www.bubblestheartist.com/fans/rupaul-autograph.jpg).

He's a libertarian whose running on the Republican side. His views are pretty easy, he's not in favor of abortion, but wants to leave it up to the states, he is, I believe, in favor of gay marriage.

The only worrying views will hopefully be taken out by Congress. For example, I don't see the Department of Education being abolished any time soon.

Shit. I kind of wanted to vote for that fucker.

i cant watch videos...

but im fine with the list.

why?

because we need education and healthcare and a living wage (although that one always sets off alarms because of its potentially disastrous meaning)

and

no matter that HE says "gun ownership is a privelege" the constitution disagrees with him so its irrelevant.

if he is going to toss aside one of my constitutional rights and say it's a "privilege" then I am not really going to trust him with the rest of them.

I went to the ontheissues.org (http://www.ontheissues.org/John_Edwards.htm) site. This is his record on the issue of gun control:

Right to bear arms protected by Second Amendment, with rules. (Mar 2004)
Hunting is fine, but criminals & kids should have limits. (Jan 2004)
Leading Dems distance themselves from divisive gun debate. (Oct 2003)
Guns are about independence-don't mess with that. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)

"It's very important for us as Democrats to understand that where I come from guns are about a lot more than guns themselves," said John Edwards. "They are about independence. For a lot of people who work hard for a living, one of the few things they feel they have any control over is whether they can buy a gun and hunt. They don't want people messing with that, which I understand."
Source: Jim VandeHei, Washington Post, p. A1 Oct 26, 2003

I'm so confused now.

The Constitution says its a right so it really doesn't matter what Edwards says. Though considering what you can do with a gun a right in this case doesn't mean that anyone should be able to have one which is probably all he meant.

The Constitution says its a right so it really doesn't matter what Edwards says. Though considering what you can do with a gun a right in this case doesn't mean that anyone should be able to have one which is probably all he meant.

I'm sure that's what he meant, but it's not the way it came across. All he's done with this interview is give ammo to all those running against him...

Well...no. The convention has full force of law, and any individual has recourse (through the Human Rights Act) to sue in a British court under it.

Wanna bet? (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1837662.ece)

The Constitution says its a right so it really doesn't matter what Edwards says. Though considering what you can do with a gun a right in this case doesn't mean that anyone should be able to have one which is probably all he meant.

don't care.

he misspoke, or whatever he is going to say later.

he doesn't recognize what a constitutional right is, he isn't going to get my vote.

I have no idea who this Ron Paul is...but every time you folks write his name, I think you're talking about this gorgeous individual (http://www.bubblestheartist.com/fans/rupaul-autograph.jpg).

lol same here Sinner

don't care.

he misspoke, or whatever he is going to say later.

he doesn't recognize what a constitutional right is, he isn't going to get my vote.

Anyone with a knee jerk reaction to anyone saying anything negative about guns wouldn't I'd guess vote for about any Democrat after all they will "come for your guns!@!!!" Felons, the insane, etc., can't have a gun so I would say that in a way it is a privilige for you can have that right taken from you. I personally have no problem with anything he says.

don't care.

he misspoke, or whatever he is going to say later.

he doesn't recognize what a constitutional right is, he isn't going to get my vote.

Is there anyway by which a US citizen would not be allowed a gun?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aea8e3OzddM

well, this was revealing
college education? right
health care? right
living wage? right
gun ownership? privilege :eek::mad:



okay......right.......who is not getting my vote?

Mr. Edwards.

one of those actually is a right........*pulls out her pocket constitution*

anyone else disturbed? (of course not.)

Bummer, I thought he might have been ok. But internet access is a right...above constitutionally protected "privileges" in his mind.

What country is he from?

Anyone with a knee jerk reaction to anyone saying anything negative about guns wouldn't I'd guess vote for about any Democrat after all they will "come for your guns!@!!!" Felons, the insane, etc., can't have a gun so I would say that in a way it is a privilige for you can have that right taken from you. I personally have no problem with anything he says.

I have voted democrat before........just not for one who would call my constitutional right a privilege over a whole list of other things that actually are privileges that he seems to think are rights. Including after his gun statement "access to the internet"

WTF?

Wanna bet? (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1837662.ece)

I really don't see how that is relevant to what I said.

Does the Convention have full force of law in the UK? Yes, it does.

Can any individual sue under it in a British court? Yes, they can.

So, no, I don't "wanna bet", because there's nothing to bet on.

Is there anyway by which a US citizen would not be allowed a gun?

Convicted Felon.
Proven history of Mental Illness.
Drunk Driving with in a certain time period.
Domestic Violence Conviction.
Having had a PPO or Restraining Order issued against you.

I think thoe are all of them...they change constantly but those seem to be at the core...but they also vary from state to state.

Is there anyway by which a US citizen would not be allowed a gun?

convicted felons, certified insane, and there are guns and ammunition that arent legal or require a special permit.

I have voted democrat before........just not for one who would call my constitutional right a privilege over a whole list of other things that actually are privileges that he seems to think are rights. Including after his gun statement "access to the internet"

WTF?

As far as I'm concerned those other things should be rights, owning a gun in comparison is nothing. The Constitution disagrees of course but for me it is common sense.

I have voted democrat before........just not for one who would call my constitutional right a privilege over a whole list of other things that actually are privileges that he seems to think are rights. Including after his gun statement "access to the internet"

WTF?

Exactly.
This isnt about Left or Right or democrat or republican it is about constitutional authority.
In the US we have a Constitution...the Highest Law of the Land.
I dont think Smunkie is a kneejerk reactionary gun nut...she just knows her civil rights and doesnt want someone who doesnt recognize all of them because it suits his political career...that makes him like Bush...and yes it does.

I really don't see how that is relevant to what I said.

Does the Convention have full force of law in the UK? Yes, it does.

Can any individual sue under it in a British court? Yes, they can.

So, no, I don't "wanna bet", because there's nothing to bet on.

Can the Europeans enforce the law? Will they even want to if they can? Probably not.

Can an individual sue in a British court maybe now, but... (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1782106.ece)

Convicted Felon.
Proven history of Mental Illness.
Drunk Driving with in a certain time period.
Domestic Violence Conviction.
Having had a PPO or Restraining Order issued against you.

I think thoe are all of them...they change constantly but those seem to be at the core...but they also vary from state to state.

So it's a privilege granted to those who are eligible?

Anyone with a knee jerk reaction to anyone saying anything negative about guns wouldn't I'd guess vote for about any Democrat after all they will "come for your guns!@!!!" Felons, the insane, etc., can't have a gun so I would say that in a way it is a privilige for you can have that right taken from you. I personally have no problem with anything he says.

Felons/the insane also have other rights temporarily or permanently curtailed. Rights me you are granted them by birth, not that they cannot be abridged if they are abused or there is a compelling reason. By your definition, what isn't a privelege?

So it's a privilege granted to those who are eligible?

Nope. It's a right abridged when there is a compelling reason, like any basic liberty. Right to vote comes to mind. Many rights are forfeit when one commits a serious enough crime.

He's a libertarian whose running on the Republican side. His views are pretty easy, he's not in favor of abortion, but wants to leave it up to the states, he is, I believe, in favor of gay marriage.

The only worrying views will hopefully be taken out by Congress. For example, I don't see the Department of Education being abolished any time soon.

I like RuPaul better.

I went to the ontheissues.org (http://www.ontheissues.org/John_Edwards.htm) site. This is his record on the issue of gun control:

Right to bear arms protected by Second Amendment, with rules. (Mar 2004)
Hunting is fine, but criminals & kids should have limits. (Jan 2004)
Leading Dems distance themselves from divisive gun debate. (Oct 2003)
Guns are about independence-don't mess with that. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)



I'm so confused now.

maybe he caught the flip-flop from Kerry.

or maybe he is lying......or maybe he conveniently "changed his mind" in order to better fit in to what he thinks people want to hear.

So it's a privilege granted to those who are eligible?

No.

All rights have restrictions.

If i murder you I often loose the right to vote, to free assembly, to freedom of search and siezure, to freedom of movement, criminal forfeit almost all oftheir rights except for those rights designed to ensure the humane treatment of criminals...but that was a nice try on your part.

Just we have freedom of speech but you walk into a crowded bar and scream "Fire" and there isnt one you are going to jail...you cant be a violent criminal, or mentally unstable and exercise certain rights.

i don't see a problem with the list, although i think priviledge is the wrong word. the first is important to give people the opportunity to make the best of themselves, just because everyone has the right to go to college doesn't mean everyone should or will go. the second two are vital for any meaningful quality of life. the last is entirely irrelevant to human existence.

i understand that some interpretations of the constitution say that everyone has the right to own as much weaponry as they desire. i just think it's moronic. anyway, rights obviously come with responsibilities. to keep the right to bear arms (if i am to accept that interpretation) one has the responsiblity to not be dangerously unstable, to not be a criminal and to undergo training and attain certified proficiency in use and safety with firearms (including their storage and maintenance). anything less is shirking one's responsibility. i understand that 'responsibility' is a big buzzword for libertarians. i like seeing it applied here. looks all cozy in there.

Felons/the insane also have other rights temporarily or permanently curtailed. Rights me you are granted them by birth, not that they cannot be abridged if they are abused or there is a compelling reason. By your definition, what isn't a privelege?

Really just about everything in the Constituion except the right to own a gun. The basic life, liberty, etc. is something all should receive. To me owning a firearm isn't a basic right.

Can the Europeans enforce the law? Will they even want to if they can? Probably not.

They don't, because it is in force here through British law. British courts and the associated systems enforce the law.

Can an individual sue in a British court maybe now, but... (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1782106.ece)

Yes, I read the article the first time you posted it. I don't see how anything is changed right now, beyond a hypothetical having been raised. The fact remains that you can sue in British courts about violations of the convention. Simple as.

Really just about everything in the Constituion except the right to own a gun. The basic life, liberty, etc. is something all should receive. To me owning a firearm isn't a basic right.

how is the right to own a gun different from everything else in the constitution?

how is the right to own a gun different from everything else in the constitution?

(it's dumber...MUAHAHAHHAHAA) *runs*

No.

All rights have restrictions.

If i murder you I often loose the right to vote, to free assembly, to freedom of search and siezure, to freedom of movement, criminal forfeit almost all oftheir rights except for those rights designed to ensure the humane treatment of criminals...but that was a nice try on your part.

Just we have freedom of speech but you walk into a crowded bar and scream "Fire" and there isnt one you are going to jail...you can be a violent criminal, or mentally unstable and exercise certain rights.

Well, then they aren't rights. Rights are something that can't be abridged, and every human holds them regardless of their actions.

They are privileges granted provided you fulfil certain conditions. Like not having been convicted of murder.

They don't, because it is in force here through British law. British courts and the associated systems enforce the law.



Yes, I read the article the first time you posted it. I don't see how anything is changed right now, beyond a hypothetical having been raised. The fact remains that you can sue in British courts about violations of the convention. Simple as.

My point is the government can opt out if it really wants to by re-wording the Human Rights Act. And if you look at the indications, certain core members of the government want to do exactly that.

how is the right to own a gun different from everything else in the constitution?

One has the right to live. Be free. But own a gun? Hardly a basic right no matter how much people love the things. I for one want to have freedom of speech, religion, right for a lawyer and a speedy trial than to have a gun. In comparison having guns is nothing.

My point is the government can opt out if it really wants to by re-wording the Human Rights Act. And if you look at the indications, certain core members of the government want to do exactly that.

Which is of what relevance to what I said originally?

And, anyway, the government can't rewrite the HRA. Only Parliament can.

maybe he caught the flip-flop from Kerry.

or maybe he is lying......or maybe he conveniently "changed his mind" in order to better fit in to what he thinks people want to hear.

I'm going to have to pay more attention to what he says in the future. I don't like the idea of any president that wants to hack away at the constitution. I've had enough of that with Bush thank you very much.

I dunno. I'm more worried about the pro-censorship canidates though. Those bills tend to get passed with alarming frequency because no one stops to think of the consequences.

I don't think I get to vote in the primaries in my state.

Well, then they aren't rights. Rights are something that can't be abridged, and every human holds them regardless of their actions.

They are privileges granted provided you fulfil certain conditions. Like not having been convicted of murder.

You are talking about Human Rights.

Smunkie and I are talking about Consitutional Rights.

Learn the difference.

I'm going to have to pay more attention to what he says in the future. I don't like the idea of any president that wants to hack away at the constitution. I've had enough of that with Bush thank you very much.

I dunno. I'm more worried about the pro-censorship canidates though. Those bills tend to get passed with alarming frequency because no one stops to think of the consequences.

I don't think I get to vote in the primaries in my state.

I'd be more worried about those Republicans who want to give interrogaters more "options" in questioning terrorists. Torture in other words. And of course trim away civil rights in areas of getting court orders for warrants. Little things like that worry me much more than possible gun restrictions. Which one would think Republicans would want in some areas to keep weapons from terrorists but no one could say that politicians lack contradictions.

One has the right to live. Be free. But own a gun? Hardly a basic right no matter how much people love the things. I for one want to have freedom of speech, religion, right for a lawyer and a speedy trial than to have a gun. In comparison having guns is nothing.

Not according to Nadkor, because those rights are restricted by certain conditions.

If at anytime you violate certain laws your freedom is forfeit, some times even your life...hence your freedom is privilege...rather then the more logical conclusion that Constitutional Rights require Civic responsibility.


And finally why is it so hard for people to understand the concept of Constitutional Rights.
These are not human rights, they are not glaobal rights, they are not moral rights, they are rights protected specifically under the amercian constitution and they are equal. One is no more basic then another.

Really just about everything in the Constituion except the right to own a gun. The basic life, liberty, etc. is something all should receive. To me owning a firearm isn't a basic right.

To the law, something a politician and/or a lawyer should know, it's absolutely a right and none of the other things are. To pretend that in the US what he said is true or even close to true is to deny fact.

You are talking about Human Rights.

Smunkie and I are talking about Consitutional Rights.

Learn the difference.

No...I'm not.

Your Constitutional "Rights" are nothing more than privileges granted to those who the law decides deserves them.

Which is of what relevance to what I said originally?

And, anyway, the government can't rewrite the HRA. Only Parliament can.

The increasingly sycophantic Labour majority would largely be happy to comply with the executive's request. Especially if Reid made more terrorist warnings in the papers and on television.

Vote for him...I like his tie...and his haircut...:p

Well, then they aren't rights. Rights are something that can't be abridged, and every human holds them regardless of their actions.

They are privileges granted provided you fulfil certain conditions. Like not having been convicted of murder.

What cannot be abridged in the US? Since we're talking about the US and all.

Freedom of movement? Yep.

Freedom of speech? Yep.

Right to assemble? Yep.

Property rights? Yep.

Marriage rights? Yep.

Right to vote? Yep.

So what are these rights that are never abridged?

The increasingly sycophantic Labour majority would largely be happy to comply with the executive's request. Especially if Reid made more terrorist warnings in the papers and on television.

Well, no, I don't think they would. The Terrorism Act last year was defeated in the Commons in one of its votes, forcing the government to step back from some of its measures. Amending HRA to remove the right to liberty would get a much stronger reaction. And that's to say nothing of the Lords.

And again, what does this have to do with what I said originally?

To the law, something a politician and/or a lawyer should know, it's absolutely a right and none of the other things are. To pretend that in the US what he said is true or even close to true is to deny fact.

We can agree that certain things are basic rights and others are just ones that politicians tell us we can have. If the Constitution was changed so that guns were banned I wouldn't cry myself to sleep over their loss. Plenty of gun nuts would but they will have to get their power rush from some other place.

What cannot be abridged in the US? Since we're talking about the US and all.

Freedom of movement? Yep.

Freedom of speech? Yep.

Right to assemble? Yep.

Property rights? Yep.

Marriage rights? Yep.

Right to vote? Yep.

So what are these rights that are never abridged?

Well, exactly, that's my point. None of those are actually rights, no matter what the law may call them, unless it takes an odd definition of right. They're privileges.

We can agree that certain things are basic rights and others are just ones that politicians tell us we can have. If the Constitution was changed so that guns were banned I wouldn't cry myself to sleep over their loss. Plenty of gun nuts would but they will have to get their power rush from some other place.

That politicians tell us we can have? Absent such "tellings" how would you stop me from owning a gun? If the only way to stop me from owning a gun is to make a law against it, how can one claim the law is what grants it to me? Absent the law, I could do whatever the hell I like.

And for the record, I don't think current gun laws are restrictive and completely disagree with the NRA. That doesn't change that this guy was talking out of his anus.

Well, exactly, that's my point. None of those are actually rights, no matter what the law may call them, unless it takes an odd definition of right. They're privileges.

You didn't answer the question. What is a right? Name some rights.

And by the way, that odd definition is the standard definition. You're playing the True Scotsman fallacy here, but I'm willing to hear it out.

Well, no, I don't think they would. The Terrorism Act last year was defeated in the Commons in one of its votes, forcing the government to step back from some of its measures. Amending HRA to remove the right to liberty would get a much stronger reaction. And that's to say nothing of the Lords.

And again, what does this have to do with what I said originally?

Ah, but you see, Blair is out and Brown is in. There are an excessive amount of new MP's who are just dieing to obey whatever the Chief Whip tells them to do in the hope they can get appointed to junior minister and commitee positions.

Reid just needs to get by Brown, and he may very well have a good crack at creating his first stepping stone to the Stalinist state he so desperately wants.

Also, what is supposed to be your "original statement"? Do I know what the European Convention is? Yes. Satisfied?

You didn't answer the question. What is a right? Name some rights.

A right would be something that everybody has, that they can't 'give away' through their actions, and that the government can't take away.

In the US? I can't think of any actual, proper, rights. Only privileges.

That politicians tell us we can have? Absent such "tellings" how would you stop me from owning a gun? If the only way to stop me from owning a gun is to make a law against it, how can one claim the law is what grants it to me? Absent the law, I could do whatever the hell I like.

And for the record, I don't think current gun laws are restrictive and completely disagree with the NRA. That doesn't change that this guy was talking out of his anus.

Well it was his personal opinion and that is that guns are a privlidge which i agree with. The law may disagree but opinions don't have to match.

Meh, I never much liked Edwards as a candidate anyways.

A right would be something that everybody has, that they can't 'give away' through their actions, and that the government can't take away.

In the US? I can't think of any actual, proper, rights. Only privileges.

According to the dictionary, a right has nothing to do with that. Human rights has a connotation that is more specific, but the term we are using conveys no such thing as what you're saying.

But, hey, I suppose it didn't occur to you that a politician running for office in the US might be, you know, using a definition of the word that isn't completely meaningless in the US.

Well it was his personal opinion and that is that guns are a privlidge which i agree with. The law may disagree but opinions don't have to match.

His personal opinion is of an educated man running for office in the US that doesn't understand that gun ownership in the US is a right. I've liked him in the past, but if the guy doesn't have a concept of the law, then I'm really hoping he crawls under a rock.

And by the way, that odd definition is the standard definition. You're playing the True Scotsman fallacy here, but I'm willing to hear it out.

I'm not playing the No True Scotsman fallacy. Not even close. More like Devil's Advocate, but that's not totally accurate

I'm not playing the No True Scotsman fallacy. Not even close. More like Devil's Advocate, but that's not totally accurate

I said I'd let you play it out, because even as a fallacy (and you must admit that both he and we were using it in the context of the US) it's an interesting discussion. It's not like you're completely avoiding the issue, which is the primary reason such a fallacy usually bothers me. You're simply saying and showing why you disagree with the usage of rights in the US. I think you'd find that a lot of US citizens disagree with the way the US addresses rights.

Meanwhile, the flaw I find in your definition is that the way you're using it, rights are something that appear and disappear depending on the actions of the government. Apparently in the US I have no rights whereas in England I have several.

Ah, but you see, Blair is out and Brown is in. There are an excessive amount of new MP's who are just dieing to obey whatever the Chief Whip tells them to do in the hope they can get appointed to junior minister and commitee positions.

Reid just needs to get by Brown, and he may very well have a good crack at creating his first stepping stone to the Stalinist state he so desperately wants.

And there are a whole load more who would never vote for removing the right to liberty from HRA.

Also, what is supposed to be your "original statement"? Do I know what the European Convention is? Yes. Satisfied?

I'm not asking you to reply to it, I'm asking of what relevance John Reid's hypothetical is to it.

To the law, something a politician and/or a lawyer should know, it's absolutely a right and none of the other things are. To pretend that in the US what he said is true or even close to true is to deny fact.

I can't watch the vid right now. Does he actually say these things are legal rights or constitutionally protected rights? Or is he expressing an opinion?

I recognize that healthcare is not a legally protected right in this country. But I damn sure think a minimum level of healthcare is a human right - and should be legally protected.

His personal opinion is of an educated man running for office in the US that doesn't understand that gun ownership in the US is a right. I've liked him in the past, but if the guy doesn't have a concept of the law, then I'm really hoping he crawls under a rock.

The interviewer was trying to get his opinion. Not to give a simple "well duh, its the 2nd amendment" response. Should gun ownership be considered a right? Frankly I don't see what the big deal is about owning one unless someone wants to feel powerful, have the ability to easily kill (not that they want to of course but they COULD). Edwards knows full well what the law is, if his opinion differs that is fine with me as long as he follows the law.

I know this is much like repeating myself but I just feel this interview wasn't that big a deal. He can believe what he wants after all.

I have no idea who this Ron Paul is...but every time you folks write his name, I think you're talking about this gorgeous individual (http://www.bubblestheartist.com/fans/rupaul-autograph.jpg).


I keep thinking of Ron Jeremy (every time I read Ron Paul and at none other whatsover).

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness are laid out in a non-binding document issued to the various powers of the world as a declaration of independance from a monarchy. These "inalienable rights" were further expanded on not in the Constitution as it was written, but in the first ten amendments(The Bill of Rights) to the US Constitution. Amendments are more subject to change than the frame-work itself.

The 2nd amendment reads as such:
A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


The wording insinuates that the reason for this right is to maintain a militia composed of the populace. Any such militia in this day and age would be out-gunned by any modern military force. If this amendment were still followed to the letter, any american citizen could keep tank in their garrage, and a SAM battery in their back-yard. To suggest that this amendment is to protect the right to hunt, or the right for someone to purchase a handgun for personal security is to take it out of context of the era in which it was written. In fact those such rights are covered under the Tenth amendment;

The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This is why states manage their own hunting seasons, and can strengthen gun control laws or relax them in the cases of non-military grade weapons. It is why in some states concealed handguns without a permit are legal, and in others they are not.


Gun Ownership is not a constitutionally guaranteed right. The right to secure a well armed militia is, so if you want, join the National Guard(the modern incarnation of the state militia).

There are no rights permanently guaranteed in the US constitution aside from rights guaranteed to individual States to secure equal share in federal power. When it comes to basic "rights" the States are traditionally sovereign EXCEPT when the federal government feels the need to step in. (ie: emancipation)

Any politician can call whatever they wish to a right. Rights are arbitrary designations decided upon by governments when it is necessary to do so. They are easily weakened or taken away, even in the United States. If you do not agree; you have simply to look at the move from a completely free market economy to a regulated market economy over the course of the 20th century.

sources: US constitution, Constitutional Law: twelfth edition Gerald Gunther

According to the dictionary, a right has nothing to do with that. Human rights has a connotation that is more specific, but the term we are using conveys no such thing as what you're saying.

I'm not referring to Human Rights, I'm referring to the fact that using the word "right" in respect to constitutional "rights" in the US isn't strictly correct.

Perhaps we should establish now what your definition of a right would be?

I can't watch the vid right now. Does he actually say these things are legal rights or constitutionally protected rights? Or is he expressing an opinion?

I recognize that healthcare is not a legally protected right in this country. But I damn sure think a minimum level of healthcare is a human right - and should be legally protected.

I rewatched so that I could answer this correctly. I stand corrected. The interviewer specifically say "SHOULD be a right or privelege". I do find it pretty concerning that he listed everything that's not in the constitution as a right and the only thing in the constitution as a privelege.

Specifically, I'm correcting my stance regarding Utracia and Nadkor's comments. I think he has every right to say how he thinks things SHOULD be.

I'm not referring to Human Rights, I'm referring to the fact that using the word "right" in respect to constitutional "rights" in the US isn't strictly correct.

Perhaps we should establish now what your definition of a right would be?

I'd use the dictionary definition as found here.

Right (noun)
2 : something to which one has a just claim: as a : the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled <voting rights> <his right to decide>

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/right

I'm not referring to Human Rights, I'm referring to the fact that using the word "right" in respect to constitutional "rights" in the US isn't strictly correct.

Perhaps we should establish now what your definition of a right would be?

forget the US

name a right that fits your definition.

As if I needed more reason to vote for Newt (should he throw in his hat). :)

I said I'd let you play it out, because even as a fallacy (and you must admit that both he and we were using it in the context of the US) it's an interesting discussion. It's not like you're completely avoiding the issue, which is the primary reason such a fallacy usually bothers me. You're simply saying and showing why you disagree with the usage of rights in the US. I think you'd find that a lot of US citizens disagree with the way the US addresses rights.

It may fall into the fringes of the No True Scotsman fallacy, but you could say that about any discussion on whether something is something or whether it's another thing altogether.

Meanwhile, the flaw I find in your definition is that the way you're using it, rights are something that appear and disappear depending on the actions of the government. Apparently in the US I have no rights whereas in England I have several.

Well, I'm taking "rights" to mean what it says in the amendments to the US Constitution (e.g. "Congress shall make no law..."). That is to say, a right is something which may not be abridged by Congress or the government. That is the definiton I'm using. My point is that the use of the word "right" in the US now is incorrect when compared to this, as those rights have been demoted to privileges over the last 200-odd years. That's what I said earlier something along the lines of "those rights are privileges, regardless of what the law says".

Oh, in England you have no actual rights either, despite what the law says. Only privileges.

forget the US

name a right that fits your definition.

Well, within the EU there's the right to life. That's possibly about it, as it's the only one which hasn't (as yet) been demoted to a privilege.

I rewatched so that I could answer this correctly. I stand corrected. The interviewer specifically say "SHOULD be a right or privelege". I do find it pretty concerning that he listed everything that's not in the constitution as a right and the only thing in the constitution as a privelege.

Specifically, I'm correcting my stance regarding Utracia and Nadkor's comments. I think he has every right to say how he thinks things SHOULD be.

Ok, that makes more sense. To be fair, if those are the things they asked him about, only one of them was in the Constitution at all. I obviously can't say for sure, but I think he would have listed things like voting, freedom of assembly, etc. as rights.

I can certainly understand the viewpoint of gun ownership being a privilege. I take no issue with some restrictions on guns and would be happy to see the requirement of completing a gun safety course added. But that's just me.

I don't agree with his whole list, but I'm not really surprised by much of it.

I rewatched so that I could answer this correctly. I stand corrected. The interviewer specifically say "SHOULD be a right or privelege". I do find it pretty concerning that he listed everything that's not in the constitution as a right and the only thing in the constitution as a privelege.

Specifically, I'm correcting my stance regarding Utracia and Nadkor's comments. I think he has every right to say how he thinks things SHOULD be.

oh, okay.......it's still disturbing though.

I missed the "should" which makes things a little more bearable.

however, if he wants to go screwing with my constitutional rights......I still don't like him.

Well, within the EU there's the right to life. That's possibly about it, as it's the only one which hasn't (as yet) been demoted to a privilege.

even the euthanized babies in the netherlands?

there is no absolute right to anything. it always has to be figured out as to what exactly it means to have a "right to life".

for example, should another world war break out (highly doubtful but not out of the question) you might find that the EU or its member countries need to institute a draft to fill the armies needed. war leads to death. where would the right to life be then?

even the euthanized babies in the netherlands?

Yes, but that's something done by the Netherlands. I meant the EU as a political body, not as a group of member states...if you get what I mean. The EU has never done anything to infringe on a right to life, but it has, as far as I know, passed laws that would cause an individual to be incarcerated if they were broken.

there is no absolute right to anything. it always has to be figured out as to what exactly it means to have a "right to life".

for example, should another world war break out (highly doubtful but not out of the question) you might find that the EU or its member countries need to institute a draft to fill the armies needed. war leads to death. where would the right to life be then?

In an interesting position.

Yes, but that's something done by the Netherlands. I meant the EU as a political body, not as a group of member states...if you get what I mean. The EU has never done anything to infringe on a right to life, but it has, as far as I know, passed laws that would cause an individual to be incarcerated if they were broken.



In an interesting position.

the point i want to make is that rights only truly exist when they are supported by the government. (and demanded by the people)

there is no sense to say "i have a right to marry whomever will accept me" when the government has the final say and can keep you from marrying your same-sex sweetheart, the 5 year old next door or your adoring cockerspaniel.

we SHOULD have the right to marry whomever will accept us, but there will aways be some restrictions. same with any other basic right.

in the US we enforce these rights by relying on our constitution. even when its being violated on a regular basis (warrantless wiretaps) we can still keep protesting and taking it to court based on the violation of our constitutional rights. sooner or later we will win.

the point i want to make is that rights only truly exist when they are supported by the government. (and demanded by the people)

there is no sense to say "i have a right to marry whomever will accept me" when the government has the final say and can keep you from marrying your same-sex sweetheart, the 5 year old next door or your adoring cockerspaniel.

we SHOULD have the right to marry whomever will accept us, but there will aways be some restrictions. same with any other basic right.

in the US we enforce these rights by relying on our constitution. even when its being violated on a regular basis (warrantless wiretaps) we can still keep protesting and taking it to court based on the violation of our constitutional rights. sooner or later we will win.

Well, in that case, I'm not really sure what your point is in relation to mine? You seem to be sort of agreeing with me.

One has the right to live. Be free. But own a gun? Hardly a basic right no matter how much people love the things. I for one want to have freedom of speech, religion, right for a lawyer and a speedy trial than to have a gun. In comparison having guns is nothing.

What about the basic right to self defense? Do you agree with that? Guns are simply a tool of self defense. Therefor I would say that owning a gun is a basic right, no matter how much people hate the things.

Just because you are afraid of them doesn't mean they are not a right.

Never do interviews where people on teh interwebz can ask awkward questions, it's political suicide.

The best thing for a democrat to do to get in power? Lie his ass off.

one of those actually is a right...
How can ownership of anything be a right? Surely if it's a right then you're making the government institutionally responsible for that item's provision?

I'm not referring to Human Rights, I'm referring to the fact that using the word "right" in respect to constitutional "rights" in the US isn't strictly correct.

Perhaps we should establish now what your definition of a right would be?

Then by your definition there is no such thing as rights. There is nothing stopping the EU (other than the people) from passing the death penalty for spitting on the sidewalk or jaywalking.

Then by your definition there is no such thing as rights. There is nothing stopping the EU (other than the people) from passing the death penalty for spitting on the sidewalk or jaywalking.

Oh, there are such things as rights. They exist before governments start interfering.

Oh, there are such things as rights. They exist before governments start interfering.

But if governments can take them away, then by your definition they are not rights, but priviliges.

I think your definition is too narrowly defined.

The only way for a politician to do to get in power? Lie his ass off.

Fixed.

I am absolutely sick to death of people who don't give a crap about anything else, so long as they can have their precious guns. It's that attitude that has allowed passage of things like the Millitary Commissions Act. THERE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS THAN YOUR GOD DAMN GUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am absolutely sick to death of people who don't give a crap about anything else, so long as they can have their precious guns. It's that attitude that has allowed passage of things like the Millitary Commissions Act. THERE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS THAN YOUR GOD DAMN GUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

nice rant.......short on flames.

however, you entirely missed my point.

nice rant.......short on flames.

however, you entirely missed my point.

I must have. What exactly were you trying to say, then?

I must have. What exactly were you trying to say, then?

that my constitutional rights are important to me and that a candidate who would toss them aside like that.......isn't getting my vote.

stick any other constitutional right in there, and I am still pissed off

freedom of speech? privilege
due process? privilege


see? still upset.

I think the point of the thread was the fact that everything he listed as a "right" is not technically a right, but rather a nice-to-have. The one thing he listed as a privilege is the only one that is a "right"...
...maybe he listed things that should be rights as rights and what should be priviliges are priviliges...

that my constitutional rights are important to me and that a candidate who would toss them aside like that.......isn't getting my vote.

stick any other constitutional right in there, and I am still pissed off

freedom of speech? privilege
due process? privilege


see? still upset.

Vote for Ron Paul? Please? I'll give you a slice of cheese cake.

Also I agree with you Smunkee, gun ownerships is a right stated in the Bill of Rights, it is not a 'privilege' as John Edwards has stated.

that my constitutional rights are important to me and that a candidate who would toss them aside like that.......isn't getting my vote.

stick any other constitutional right in there, and I am still pissed off

freedom of speech? privilege
due process? privilege


see? still upset.

Got it. So my post doesn't apply to you, but there really are those on this site that appear to believe exactly what I described.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aea8e3OzddM

well, this was revealing
college education? right
health care? right
living wage? right
gun ownership? privilege :eek::mad:



okay......right.......who is not getting my vote?

Mr. Edwards.

one of those actually is a right........*pulls out her pocket constitution*

anyone else disturbed? (of course not.)

I'm disturbed, though not surprised. I've always known Edwards is a communist.

"Access to the internet"
If we accept the internet to be a common current-day form of media, his answer of "right" could be his saying "right" to an actual right (right to free speech & press).
And yeah, it was a "should" rather than an "is." Not that this necessarily helps you feel better, Smunkee, but I tried. :)

I'm disturbed, though not surprised. I've always known Edwards is a communist.

Isn't there a corollary to Godwin's Law that deals with calling anyone with whom one disagrees a Communist?

Isn't there a corollary to Godwin's Law that deals with calling anyone with whom one disagrees a Communist?

Its not a godwin, look at the guy's positions.

Rights exist only where society (almost exclusively via government) grants them. That doesn't invalidate campaigns for or against certain rights, but if the society you're in doesn't acknowledge your claim to a right then you're buggered. Which, amusingly, shafts objectivists.

Generally speaking, claiming gun ownership as a right in the US is pretty safe. Claiming gun ownership as a right in the UK is futile. And this is fine; we're different societies with massively different experiences of the consequences of distributing such weaponry amongst the general populace.

As for Edwards, well, he's a leading Democrat, which automatically qualifies him as a tit. If he were a Republican the outcome would be no different. We have a similar problem in the UK. Communist, though? Wake up, dearie.

Its not a godwin, look at the guy's positions.

I have. You may not have noticed this, but Democrats aren't even all that left, much less are they Communists.

I don't see any need to prise a gun from anyone's cold dead fingers.
Just bury the nasty thing with them! :p

I have. You may not have noticed this, but Democrats aren't even all that left, much less are they Communists.

I didn't say Democrats, I said him.

Nope, I live in England. We don't have rights that can't be curbed.

¬_¬
Our constitution has a clause that allows the government to ignore most sections of the constitution, as long as they admit they are doing it.

I didn't say Democrats, I said him.
And this stops you from being comically wrong... how?

But if governments can take them away, then by your definition they are not rights, but priviliges.

I think your definition is too narrowly defined.

Well, no, it isn't.

My actual definition of a right is something that is granted to a person and, by the law of the day, can't be abridged.

That does nothing at all to stop governments from changing the law to allow rights to be abridged, or to remove them at all.

I dont think Smunkie is a kneejerk reactionary gun nut...maybe she is not a wacko.. but its funny how many times she keeps repeating "he lost my vote" .. "he lost my vote" .. "he lost my vote"

Like if she was ever going to vote for Edwards before she found and posted this Video clip. :D

maybe she is not a wacko.. but its funny how many times she keeps repeating "he lost my vote" .. "he lost my vote" .. "he lost my vote"

Like if she was ever going to vote for Edwards before she found and posted this Video clip. :D

I might have. I might still have to.....if he ends up against one of the republicans I hate (which actually that happened in 2000 the two I hated most became the candidates)

Well, within the EU there's the right to life. That's possibly about it, as it's the only one which hasn't (as yet) been demoted to a privilege.

Right to life would include the right to end your own life, would it not?

What about the basic right to self defense? Do you agree with that? Guns are simply a tool of self defense. Therefor I would say that owning a gun is a basic right, no matter how much people hate the things.

Just because you are afraid of them doesn't mean they are not a right.

By your (false) logic, people should be allowed to carry around howitzers and nukes and anything else they can "defend themselves" with.

You can defend yourself with plenty else besides a gun.

It's much like that thing where you can't shout rape or fire without cause even though you have freedom of speech - you shouldn't be allowed to have a gun in certain circumstances, and you shouldn't be allowed to have certain guns at all, even though you have the right to defend yourself. You have the right to learn martial arts, you have the right to register a retractable baton and carry it around with you, you even have the right to unleash the fury of hell upon an attacker with a relentless stream of four or five tasers - however many you can carry.

But guns are far too dangerous, in my opinion, to be considered a right that everyone automatically has.

Never do interviews where people on teh interwebz can ask awkward questions, it's political suicide.

The best thing for a democrat to do to get in power? Lie his ass off.

But then he'd be a republican! *ba dum psh*

that my constitutional rights are important to me and that a candidate who would toss them aside like that.......isn't getting my vote.

stick any other constitutional right in there, and I am still pissed off

freedom of speech? privilege
due process? privilege


see? still upset.

But the 'constitutional right' phrases it in such a way that it seems the right is the purpose of a well-armed militia, as opposed to a well-armed father of two that lives in the suburbs.

Therefore, it's up for debate. If Edwards debates that it should be read a way different than what you interpret it as, that doesn't mean he's taking away a constitutional right, that means he interprets it differently.

Its not a godwin, look at the guy's positions.

Considering who you are, it's a godwin. Everything you say is an automatic godwin, regardless of context or what's actually said.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aea8e3OzddM

well, this was revealing
college education? right
health care? right
living wage? right
gun ownership? privilege :eek::mad:



okay......right.......who is not getting my vote?

Mr. Edwards.

one of those actually is a right........*pulls out her pocket constitution*

anyone else disturbed? (of course not.)

He doesn't say any of those things are rights or privileges. He says he thinks they SHOULD be rights or privileges.

Not that it matters - if it is a 'right' that can be altered depending on circumstances, is it really a 'right', anyway? Regardless of what the Constitution says?

Example: can you lose your 'right' to free speech, because of a mental disorder?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aea8e3OzddM

well, this was revealing
college education? right
health care? right
living wage? right
gun ownership? privilege :eek::mad:



okay......right.......who is not getting my vote?

Mr. Edwards.

one of those actually is a right........*pulls out her pocket constitution*

anyone else disturbed? (of course not.)

And the problem with that is what, exactly? :confused:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aea8e3OzddM

well, this was revealing
college education? right
health care? right
living wage? right
gun ownership? privilege :eek::mad:



okay......right.......who is not getting my vote?

Mr. Edwards.

one of those actually is a right........*pulls out her pocket constitution*

anyone else disturbed? (of course not.)

Well of course you'll disregard the best man for the job - after all, your freedom is all about owning guns, right?

Well of course you'll disregard the best man for the job - after all, your freedom is all about owning guns, right?

Let's be fair to Smunkee. She said the issue was that of the questions it was the only enumerated right, not that it was that specific right. If he'd said that about freedom of speech or freedom to assemble, she would be equally up in arms, as I suspect everyone else would be. He happened to say it about a more disputed and controversial right and that is only reason anyone is giving Smunkee a hard time on it.

Let's be fair to Smunkee. She said the issue was that of the questions it was the only enumerated right, not that it was that specific right. If he'd said that about freedom of speech or freedom to assemble, she would be equally up in arms, as I suspect everyone else would be. He happened to say it about a more disputed and controversial right and that is only reason anyone is giving Smunkee a hard time on it.

it's fun to attack a strawman. ;)

And the problem with that is what, exactly? :confused:

Second Amendment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aea8e3OzddM

well, this was revealing
college education? right
health care? right
living wage? right
gun ownership? privilege :eek::mad:



okay......right.......who is not getting my vote?

Mr. Edwards.

one of those actually is a right........*pulls out her pocket constitution*

anyone else disturbed? (of course not.)
I don't know if anyone else has pointed this out, but gun ownership is a limited right--just like all the rights in the Constitution are limited. If you're institutionalized for mental instability, you lose your right to own a firearm. Same for a felony conviction. In that sense, gun ownership is a privilege that can be taken away. You may not like the way he worded that, but he was correct in what he said.

Well of course you'll disregard the best man for the job - after all, your freedom is all about owning guns, right?

Best man for the job? Edwards decided not to seek another term because he couldn't get reelected...and reelection rates for incumbents are upwards of 80 or 90 percent in most elections. You've really got to screw up to fail at reelection, especially in your first term.

I don't know if anyone else has pointed this out, but gun ownership is a limited right--just like all the rights in the Constitution are limited. If you're institutionalized for mental instability, you lose your right to own a firearm. Same for a felony conviction. In that sense, gun ownership is a privilege that can be taken away. You may not like the way he worded that, but he was correct in what he said.

But by that logic, so are healthcare, college education, and a living wage.

Second Amendment.

Right... USAmerican thing, then. *shrugs*

But by that logic, so are healthcare, college education, and a living wage.

You're right. If Edwards is to be taken to task, it's for the sloppy way he slings the word "right" around, but he's hardly the only sinner in that respect. We're all notoriously sloppy in our use of language.

Best man for the job? Edwards decided not to seek another term because he couldn't get reelected...and reelection rates for incumbents are upwards of 80 or 90 percent in most elections. You've really got to screw up to fail at reelection, especially in your first term.

Actually, you're most likely to lose in your first term re-election (if you're likely to lose at all). After the first term is when you're most vulnerable. And there's no guarantee that he'd have lost had he run for re-election. Liddy Dole isn't exactly a fearsome candidate, and while NC was trending red, they still elected a Democratic governor in Mike Easley. Dole didn't blow away her competition in Erskine Bowles when she won--she won by 9 points in a year (2002) when the Dems were blown out of the water by the post-9/11 brain fart the country took. She'd be in a world of hurt if Easley decided to take her on in 2008.