The definitive Constitutional rights and freedoms comparison thread.

[timj219]

Originally Posted by Lunatech

Now, for the limitations. In 1934 the right to own fully automatic weapons was curtailed (but not abolished) with the enactment of the National Firearms Act. 1938 saw the enactment of the Federal Firearms Act, which prohibited the sale and shipping of firearms the interstate cammerce without a Federal Firearms License. In 1968, the Gun Control Act outlawed the mail order sale of rifles and shotguns, and prohibited the sale of firearms to convicted felons (duh) drug users, people found mentally incompetent, and a few others (like people currently under a restraining order). Finally, in 1994, a temporary restriction was created on the sale of scary-looking weapons (as most of the features banned were cosmetic only in nature) and handguns that could take magazines with a capacity exceding 10 rounds. This bit of legislation had a built-in sunset which invalidated the law after ten years. This was considered by most in these parts as the only sane part of the legislation.

This is what baffles me about the 2nd amendment. It says

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

so how are any of these restrictions justified?

Either the right "shall not be infringed" or it shall. Once a law is passed forbiding my ownership of a 150mm howitzer or a 50 cal machine gun then further restrictions are perfectly justified and merely a matter of community standards. There is no longer any question of passing constitutional muster.

[Lunatech]

Originally Posted by timj219

This is what baffles me about the 2nd amendment. how are any of these restrictions justified?

Either the right "shall not be infringed" or it shall. Once a law is passed forbiding my ownership of a 150mm howitzer or a 50 cal machine gun then further restrictions are perfectly justified and merely a matter of community standards. There is no longer any question of passing constitutional muster.

You're right. This is why I may agree with gun legislation, but oppose it anyway.

And while the legislation puts restrictions on my ability to own a .50 caliber machine gun, I still can. I would have to pay through the nose, but I am one of those americans who is well-off enough to swing it. But that kind of money is for investments only to me, so I don't. As far as I know, though, there is no restriction on 150mm howitzers. But I'm no lawyer.

In a word, I agree, one should be allowed to own any weapon under this Amendment.

[Lunatech]

And whether or not you think that the right to keep and bear arms is valid or relevant, it is a right that we Americans have that the Australians don't. So, depending on your scoring, that is either 1-0 Americans, or 3-0 Americans.

Moving on to the next right:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the
Owner; nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

This amendment stems from the fact that, during the Revolution, the insurgents sometimes had to commandeer lodging for their troops. Perfectly natural when you consider that all of the military installations at the time were in possession of the British. But it made property owners of all stripes rather pissy. And when you consider that originally property owners made up the single largest voting block, this amendment makes political sense.

Anybody else have this right spelled out? It's kind of a dud, not as exciting as the last, or the next two, for that matter. Anyone care to comment or criticize?

[Evil_inKarlate]

It's kind of a dud, not as exciting as the last, or the next two, for that matter. Anyone care to comment or criticize?

It's the only one that has remained 100% intact, so that's a plus!

[crisis]

Originally Posted by Lunatech

I know you don't think it is a right, crisis. I get it. I merely pointed out that it is, as spelled out in our constitution. Love it or hate it, it is a right that isn't going away. Not anytime soon.

Well I am not arguing whether it is spelled out in your constitution. I am not debating whether it is likely to be removed. I am debating the relevance and logic of it still being there.

Originally Posted by Lunatech

And, by the way, if you think there is such a thing as "preventable death," you live in a world completely removed from reality. Everybody dies, the particulars as to how, when, and where are the only variables.

Quite. Like at 15 years old by suicide because for a period of your life you felt unable to go n on or could not be convinced things would improve or at 80 after coming through that period and not having dads rifle close at hand to make an irrational hasty decision.
Death is not ultimately preventable but untimely death is.

Originally Posted by Lunatech

Perfectly. It's the price of freedom.

Gun proliferation does not equate to freedom. Only the freedom to own a gun.

Originally Posted by Lunatech

Have you served in the military? I have. The military fears an armed populace, even with the disparity of power in weaponry.

A broad statement and you appear to be speaking for a lot of people. DO you have such an authority?

Originally Posted by Lunatech

Until you can prove they are irrelevant, your argument holds no water. You are arguing from emotion ("We can prevent deaths!!!!") just as much as I am.

Issues regarding relevance of A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The free state did not have a Police force.
The current state does.
You may argue the effectiveness of your current Police but not the fact that they perform tasks with regard to crime and law enforcement that a community without one would not enjoy.

Secondly the disparity between technology and weapons available then and now. That has been covered. It is relevant and makes an armed population irrelevant.

Further to this your military does not need untrained disorganised public running around with guns to aid them in the defence of your country for all the rezones regarding technology and capability addressed previously.

The threats to your county have changed many times since that document was written changing the relevance of it.

Originally Posted by Lunatech

We will not take away a right for no reason. Why should we? There is no evidence that any deaths will be prevented by taking away firearms. None.

Gun deaths have reduced in Australia form reducing the amount of weapons available to the public. Logic and in fact mathematics dictates the if there are less guns there has to be less chance of them big involved in unnecessary deaths and violence. To argue anything else is just being obstreperous. And the cost of taking away such an unimportant right is nothing compared the chance it may. If you loose the right and not one life is saved you have lost nothing. That of course will not happen.

Originally Posted by Lunatech

Look, crisis, both sides of the argument use emotions to sway the public. I don't like it, and no, it's no way to run a country or make laws. But according to your arguments, anything that is unnecessary that is dangerous should be banned. Like cars and swimming pools, for example.

You cannot seriously argue the same points for cars and swimming pools.

Originally Posted by Lunatech

By the way, this is one right we have that you don't, so that's one point for the US!

What is?

[crisis]

Originally Posted by Lunatech

You're right. This is why I may agree with gun legislation, but oppose it anyway.

And while the legislation puts restrictions on my ability to own a .50 caliber machine gun, I still can. I would have to pay through the nose, but I am one of those americans who is well-off enough to swing it. But that kind of money is for investments only to me, so I don't. As far as I know, though, there is no restriction on 150mm howitzers. But I'm no lawyer.

In a word, I agree, one should be allowed to own any weapon under this Amendment.

And thus making it even more ridiculous and irrelevant. 50 cals and 150mm howitzers were not even conceivable when it was written. It effectively makes the law/right very short sighted and extremely irresponsible. The term arms by definition in the days it was written could not have covered automatic weapons or semi automatic weapons of any kind as they did not exist.

[crisis]

Originally Posted by Lunatech

And whether or not you think that the right to keep and bear arms is valid or relevant, it is a right that we Americans have that the Australians don't. So, depending on your scoring, that is either 1-0 Americans, or 3-0 Americans.

Not yet. What do you mean by “the right to keep and bear arms”? We are able to keep arms. In fact we are able to keep the type of arms that more closely resemble those referred to and intended by your constitution ie the un automatic/semi automatic type.
Explain your scoring?

[crisis]

Originally Posted by Lunatech

This amendment stems from the fact that, during the Revolution, the insurgents sometimes had to commandeer lodging for their troops. Perfectly natural when you consider that all of the military installations at the time were in possession of the British. But it made property owners of all stripes rather pissy. And when you consider that originally property owners made up the single largest voting block, this amendment makes political sense.

Anybody else have this right spelled out? It's kind of a dud, not as exciting as the last, or the next two, for that matter. Anyone care to comment or criticize?

So another irrelevant one then? I am starting to see a pattern emerging.
To claim this as a right when you yourself state it was written to address issues of a particular time relevant only to circumstance that existed in your country at that time is surly a bit much for even the most blindly patriotic among us? Would you consider a similar such law written for another country of any advantage or to resemble a significant freedom over what you have in your country?

[Lunatech]

Originally Posted by crisis

Well I am not arguing whether it is spelled out in your constitution. I am not debating whether it is likely to be removed. I am debating the relevance and logic of it still being there.

I am not debating their relevance, though. I am saying that the right exists, whether you find it relevant or not, and that it is right I have that you don't. Get it?

Originally Posted by crisis

Quite. Like at 15 years old by suicide because for a period of your life you felt unable to go n on or could not be convinced things would improve or at 80 after coming through that period and not having dads rifle close at hand to make an irrational hasty decision.
Death is not ultimately preventable but untimely death is.

My best friend hung himself in the fourth grade. In a town where people would leave guns in their gunracks in their truck. Guns were everywhere, including Jonathan's home. Tell me how suspending the 2nd Amendment would have prevented his untimely death. You can't stop accidents or suicides by taking out one factor in the equation. People die before their time. It happens.

Originally Posted by crisis

Gun proliferation does not equate to freedom. Only the freedom to own a gun.

Ah, we're getting somewhere. I'm free to own a gun. Are you?

Originally Posted by crisis

A broad statement and you appear to be speaking for a lot of people. DO you have such an authority?

Read as: "I have never served in the military, so I know not of what I speak. So I will make it appear as though you are overstepping your bounds." I repeat: As a former infantryman, I can tell you from first hand experience, that the military fears an armed populace. Now, answer my question. Have you any military experience?

Originally Posted by crisis

Issues regarding relevance of A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The free state did not have a Police force.
The current state does.
You may argue the effectiveness of your current Police but not the fact that they perform tasks with regard to crime and law enforcement that a community without one would not enjoy.

Secondly the disparity between technology and weapons available then and now. That has been covered. It is relevant and makes an armed population irrelevant.

Further to this your military does not need untrained disorganised public running around with guns to aid them in the defence of your country for all the rezones regarding technology and capability addressed previously.

Argue relevance all you want. I am not here to argue relevance, I am already watching and participating in threads elsewhere that are on that topic. Hell, you can even start another thread questioning the relevance of the Second Amendment. I may even participate. I have the right to keep and bear arms, and you don't. Deny it, show me that I don't have that right or that you do, and move on to the next right. Or are you denied that one, too?

Originally Posted by crisis

The threats to your county have changed many times since that document was written changing the relevance of it.

And the weapons and their use in society have changed, as well. Which makes them just as relevant.

Originally Posted by crisis

Gun deaths have reduced in Australia form reducing the amount of weapons available to the public.

Ah, now we get to the crux of the issue. Tell me, kind sir or madam (for I truly do not know), have deaths reduced? Not gun deaths. Deaths. You argue that there is such a thing as "preventable deaths." Support your argument, please.

Originally Posted by crisis

Logic and in fact mathematics dictates the if there are less guns there has to be less chance of them big involved in unnecessary deaths and violence.

From guns, yes. I would agree. But has there been a decrease in deaths and violence? Please, support yourself, with facts and figures. And not facts and figures on gun deaths, facts and figures on "unnecessary death and violence." Otherwise, your logic is flawed.

Originally Posted by crisis

To argue anything else is just being obstreperous. And the cost of taking away such an unimportant right is nothing compared the chance it may. If you loose the right and not one life is saved you have lost nothing. That of course will not happen.

I will lose the right, which is a great cost, indeed. To you it is unimportant, but to me, it is important. But we live in two different cultures, and I do not expect youy to value what we value.

Originally Posted by crisis

You cannot seriously argue the same points for cars and swimming pools.

Yes, I can. They are not necessary, and they cause deaths. Therefore, they should be banned. Hell, people only use them for recreation, they can find other hobbies. Look at how many lives would be saved!!!!

Originally Posted by crisis

What is?

The right to keep and bear arms. We have it, you don't.

Look, we got into a pissing match, crisis. I said you weren't as free as we are, and you said you were. So I said "let's compare constitutions." And you come empty handed. So far, you've admitted that you have no enumerated right to a free press, that you have no enumerated right to free assembly, and that you don't have the right to keep and bear arms. You counter with "hey, that right's irrelevant." Fine. I will argue that without the right to keep and bear arms, all other rights are irrelevant. Remember, "Soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Use in that order."

Originally Posted by crisis

And thus making it even more ridiculous and irrelevant. 50 cals and 150mm howitzers were not even conceivable when it was written. It effectively makes the law/right very short sighted and extremely irresponsible. The term arms by definition in the days it was written could not have covered automatic weapons or semi automatic weapons of any kind as they did not exist.

I suspect that is why they used such a generic term as "arms." Argument stands.

Originally Posted by crisis

Not yet. What do you mean by “the right to keep and bear arms”? We are able to keep arms. In fact we are able to keep the type of arms that more closely resemble those referred to and intended by your constitution ie the un automatic/semi automatic type.
Explain your scoring?

See above. Yes, I know you can keep arms. But that is not a right in your country (if you have any), but a privilege.

Originally Posted by crisis

So another irrelevant one then? I am starting to see a pattern emerging.
To claim this as a right when you yourself state it was written to address issues of a particular time relevant only to circumstance that existed in your country at that time is surly a bit much for even the most blindly patriotic among us? Would you consider a similar such law written for another country of any advantage or to resemble a significant freedom over what you have in your country?

Hey, I said it was a dud. But it is a right enumerated in our Constitution. 4-0

[Lunatech]

Alright, moving on to the Fourth Amendment. This one is a big one right now for us, and currently I believe that both the legislative and executive branches of our government are treampling these rights.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This means that in order for the government to search my person, property, papers, and effects, they must obtain a warrant from the court. This is actually a check on the executive branch (see it as the branch that implements policies set forth by the legislative) placed by the judicial branch.

In effect, the police (executive) have to ask a judge (judicial) for a warrant to search a person or their property, or tap their communications. And it also places in effect a rule of thumb that the judge may use to grant a warrant.

Now, the transgressions. The current administration has shown their disdain for this amendment by eavesdropping on telephone calls between people in this country (they claim they are not citizens they are tapping) and people in other parts of the world. They claim that the time required to get a warrant would jeopardize their investigations. I think this is a horrible abuse of power on the part of the administration, and am currently working within the law to stop it. And let's not forget the Patriot Act (passed by a large margin in congress), which allowed the FBI to search telephone, email, and financial records without a court order. Shameful, indeed.

[Lunatech]

Alright, moving on to the Fourth Amendment. This one is a big one right now for us, and currently I believe that both the legislative and executive branches of our government are treampling these rights.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This means that in order for the government to search my person, property, papers, and effects, they must obtain a warrant from the court. This is actually a check on the executive branch (see it as the branch that implements policies set forth by the legislative) placed by the judicial branch.

In effect, the police (executive) have to ask a judge (judicial) for a warrant to search a person or their property, or tap their communications. And it also places in effect a rule of thumb that the judge may use to grant a warrant.

Now, the transgressions. The current administration has shown their disdain for this amendment by eavesdropping on telephone calls between people in this country (they claim they are not citizens they are tapping) and people in other parts of the world. They claim that the time required to get a warrant would jeopardize their investigations. I think this is a horrible abuse of power on the part of the administration, and am currently working within the law to stop it. And let's not forget the Patriot Act (passed by a large margin in congress), which allowed the FBI to search telephone, email, and financial records without a court order. Shameful, indeed.

The cost is interesting, though. A lot of people hate trial lawyers because of this very amendment. If you read the amendment properly, the police have to specifically name the "person or thing" for which they are searching, as well as the place. So, the police could be issued a warrant to search for, for example, illegal firearms at a former violent felon's home. Say, during the search, they do not find any illegal firearms, but instead find six kilos of pure, uncut cocaine.

In this case, the officers would not have the right to arrest the ex-con on drug charges.

Discussion? Diuretic, enigma42, could you help out crisis? He seems to be stuck on the second amendment.

[crisis]

Originally Posted by Lunatech

I am not debating their relevance, though. I am saying that the right exists, whether you find it relevant or not, and that it is right I have that you don't. Get it?

Kind of like me fighting for my right to have babies then Reg?

Originally Posted by Lunatech

My best friend hung himself in the fourth grade. In a town where people would leave guns in their gunracks in their truck. Guns were everywhere, including Jonathan's home. Tell me how suspending the 2nd Amendment would have prevented his untimely death. You can't stop accidents or suicides by taking out one factor in the equation. People die before their time. It happens.

Sorry about your friend. The case alone proves nothing. Accepting that people die before their time when there are measures that can be taken to minimise it is illogical.

Originally Posted by Lunatech

Ah, we're getting somewhere. I'm free to own a gun. Are you?

Yes. I don’t perceive it as a freedom though. No more than I perceive the fact that I can legally own a fishing rod a freedom.

Originally Posted by Lunatech

Read as: "I have never served in the military, so I know not of what I speak. So I will make it appear as though you are overstepping your bounds." I repeat: As a former infantryman, I can tell you from first hand experience, that the military fears an armed populace. Now, answer my question. Have you any military experience?

No. As an infantryman I would assume you were not regularly taken into the confidence of you Generals and more elite leaders as such . Nor did you meet the few hundred thousand other military personnel to form your opinion. I work in a corporation with 4000 people and I have no idea what they all think of anything.
Give me a break.

Originally Posted by Lunatech

Argue relevance all you want. I am not here to argue relevance,

Or logic or rationale….

Originally Posted by Lunatech

I am already watching and participating in threads elsewhere that are on that topic. Hell, you can even start another thread questioning the relevance of the Second Amendment. I may even participate. I have the right to keep and bear arms, and you don't. Deny it, show me that I don't have that right or that you do, and move on to the next right. Or are you denied that one, too?

I reckon I got one up one you. I can keep and bear arms without an obsolete right to cling to.

Originally Posted by Lunatech

And the weapons and their use in society have changed, as well. Which makes them just as relevant.

In what way?

Originally Posted by Lunatech

Ah, now we get to the crux of the issue. Tell me, kind sir or madam (for I truly do not know), have deaths reduced? Not gun deaths. Deaths. You argue that there is such a thing as "preventable deaths." Support your argument, please.

I never said reducing guns would reduce death. That would be stupid. I said they reduce gun related death and injury.

Originally Posted by Lunatech

From guns, yes. I would agree. But has there been a decrease in deaths and violence? Please, support yourself, with facts and figures. And not facts and figures on gun deaths, facts and figures on "unnecessary death and violence." Otherwise, your logic is flawed.

Back at ya!
See above.

Originally Posted by Lunatech

I will lose the right, which is a great cost, indeed. To you it is unimportant, but to me, it is important. But we live in two different cultures, and I do not expect youy to value what we value.

It is important to you because you want your toys. Rights are just a diversion.

Originally Posted by Lunatech

Yes, I can. They are not necessary, and they cause deaths. Therefore, they should be banned. Hell, people only use them for recreation, they can find other hobbies. Look at how many lives would be saved!!!!

I use mine for transport like many others. Millions actually. They have their inherent problems but they are constantly being addressed although not always with totally effective results. Banning them because of this would be an incredible impediment to the lives of millions of people who rely on them to do their work and get to work. Similarly going to get food and other supplies they need to survive. It would require an enormous shift in the way those societies with cars functioned on both a major and micro level to engage such an outrageous endeavour.
Sorry, why are we talking about cars now? If you want to debate banning cars you should make another thread.

Originally Posted by Lunatech

The right to keep and bear arms. We have it, you don't.

Look, we got into a pissing match, crisis. I said you weren't as free as we are, and you said you were. So I said "let's compare constitutions." And you come empty ha