Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Philosophy and Religion > Philosophy

Philosophy For discussion about general and fundamental problems connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language


Thanks Tree30Thanks
Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 20th, 2017, 09:01 PM   #61
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In a House
Posts: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
Reposts for TreeDoc



TreeDoc, How can government limit something they did not give you? What do the terms absolute and unqualified mean to you in the above contexts? Of course I'm proving you wrong. Absolute is absolute. The government has NO CONSTITUTIONAL / LAWFUL / DE JURE AUTHORITY to limit something they never gave you in the first place.
How is the govt limiting your right to self defense/life? Your own links only state that you have the absolute (natural) right to self defense (Bliss v Commonwealth; Cockrum v State). Nunn v State was later limited by the state itself changing the wording within its own constitution. And Cruikshank v US Simply says the states hold the power to limit the owning and bearing of arms, it only says you have a right to bear arms for a lawful purpose, i.e. self defense.

Yet your right to life can be limited/taken if you commit a capital crime.

While you may have the right to life, you can forfeit that right by committing a crime and government can take your life even though you may not want to die and you file appeal after appeal after appeal, simply by you committing a crime that has the death penalty.

You are not proving anything/anybody wrong.

Your "restrain" quote refers to liberty/freedom, not life. Yet even freedom can be limited, again by committing a crime your freedom can be taken from you, join the military and your freedom is limited. Hell, even property that you own can be taken if you owe debts.

What you are claiming as "absolute" you are using out of context as usual.
Thanks from RNG

Last edited by TreeDoc; October 20th, 2017 at 10:06 PM.
TreeDoc is offline  
Old October 20th, 2017, 09:13 PM   #62
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 808
"I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the Federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances."
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788

"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
James Madison (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President

By the words of the founders, if government had the power to limit all Rights, you would live in tyranny. Some Rights are absolute, natural, unalienable, God given, and above the power of the government. That means the government is without authority in our de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic to limit those Rights which are unalienable.

When any government assumes that much power, you no longer live under the Constitution.
discollector is offline  
Old October 20th, 2017, 09:19 PM   #63
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 808
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeDoc View Post
Can your right to life be limited/taken if you commit a capital crime?

YOU ARE LIMITING YOUR OWN LIFE IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES

While you may have the right to life, you can forfeit that right/government can take you life, simply by you committing a crime that has the death penalty.

THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT LIMITING YOUR RIGHTS IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, YOU ARE

You are not proving anything wrong.

YOUR ARE WRONG YET AGAIN

Your "restrain" quote refers to liberty/freedom, not life. Yet even freedom can be limited, again by committing a crime your freedom can be taken from you. Hell, even property that you own can be taken if you owe debts.

YOUR LIBERTY IS AN UNALIENABLE RIGHT - READ THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

What you are claiming as "absolute" you are using out of context as usual.
YOU ARE MAKING ERRONEOUS / FALSE / UNEDUCATED CLAIMS AS USUAL

Since you seem to have a problem reading my posts, I put my responses in big red letters for you. Hopefully that will clear things up.

You wrote:

"How is the govt limiting your right to self defense/life? Your own links only state that you have the absolute right to self defense (Bliss v Commonwealth; Cockrum v State). Nunn v State was later limited by the state itself changing the wording within its own constitution. And Cruikshank v US Simply says the states hold the power to limit the owning and bearing of arms, it only says you have a right to bear arms for a lawful purpose, i.e. self defense."

I'm asking the questions. In Nunn v. State, the courts said the state cannot limit your right to keep and bear Arms; in Cockrum v. State, the state ruled that the Right to keep and bear Arms is absolute. In Cruikshank the federal government said the question regarding the Right to keep and bear Arms belongs to the state and the states had ruled that the Right is absolute.

Last edited by discollector; October 20th, 2017 at 09:24 PM.
discollector is offline  
Old October 20th, 2017, 09:30 PM   #64
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In a House
Posts: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
YOU ARE LIMITING YOUR OWN LIFE IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES
You are talking about personal choice, not rights. Is not the govt taking your life/liberty for committing the crime.

Quote:
THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT LIMITING YOUR RIGHTS IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, YOU ARE
The govt is taking your life/liberty for having committed the crime.

Quote:
YOUR ARE WRONG YET AGAIN
watafuknmoron

Quote:
YOUR LIBERTY IS AN UNALIENABLE RIGHT - READ THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
Thats right, it is, and it too can be limited/taken. You claim to have been in the military (SMFH) was your liberty not limited? UCMJ ring a bell? With all your "unalienable" spewed BS, you claim you can not forfeit your "unalienable" rights.

Quote:
YOU ARE MAKING ERRONEOUS / FALSE / UNEDUCATED CLAIMS AS USUAL
And yet I'm not.

Quote:
Since you seem to have a problem reading my posts, I put my responses in big red letters for you. Hopefully that will clear things up.
I don't have a problem reading your posts, I simply point out your own disability in comprehending your own quotes.

Quote:
I'm asking the questions. In Nunn v. State, the courts said the state cannot limit your right to keep and bear Arms; in Cockrum v. State, the state ruled that the Right to keep and bear Arms is absolute. In Cruikshank the federal government said the question regarding the Right to keep and bear Arms belongs to the state and the states had ruled that the Right is absolute.
You're asking the questions? Am I not allowed to ask anything? Nunn points out that a person has the right to keep (per the 1689 EBoR) and bear arms for self defense in the State of Georgia and that the weapon can not be carried concealed per the Georgia Constitution.

Cockrum merely states the right to bear arms for self defense is absolute (natural).

The states have never declared the right to keep and bear arms is absolute, the only thing the states have ever stated was the right to self defense is absolute. Your own Nunn link points out that your right to own arms is allowed by the 1689 EBoR that you previously claimed the DoI rejected.

Last edited by TreeDoc; October 20th, 2017 at 10:09 PM.
TreeDoc is offline  
Old October 20th, 2017, 09:59 PM   #65
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In a House
Posts: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
"I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the Federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances."
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788

"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
James Madison (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President

By the words of the founders, if government had the power to limit all Rights, you would live in tyranny. Some Rights are absolute, natural, unalienable, God given, and above the power of the government. That means the government is without authority in our de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic to limit those Rights which are unalienable.

When any government assumes that much power, you no longer live under the Constitution.
Govt has the power to take your rights, whether they be absolute, natural, unalienable, or God given if you commit a crime or fail to pay your debts.

Do you still not comprehend what this says:
Some are natural, some were granted, all can be limited/taken.
TreeDoc is offline  
Old October 20th, 2017, 10:03 PM   #66
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 808
Not all Rights can be taken / limited by the government.

"Absolute Right - an unqualified right :a legally enforceable right to take some action or to refrain from acting at the sole discretion of the person having the right"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/absolute%20right

The Australian government, in defining INTERNATIONAL Rights, makes the definition abundantly and unequivocally clear:

"International human rights law recognises that few rights are absolute and reasonable limits may be placed on most rights and freedoms. Absolute rights, however, are distinguishable from non-absolute rights: see list in the box above.

Absolute rights cannot be limited for any reason. No circumstance justifies a qualification or limitation of absolute rights. Absolute rights cannot be suspended or restricted, even during a declared state of emergency
."

https://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProte...uterights.aspx

International law applies in the United States and I seriously doubt that the legal term absolute is different in different countries - especially when I've cited so many sources that state this fact.

Last edited by discollector; October 20th, 2017 at 10:22 PM.
discollector is offline  
Old October 20th, 2017, 10:10 PM   #67
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In a House
Posts: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
I gave you several quotes that disprove what you're saying. Let me quote this stuff yet again for you.
Nothing you have quoted has disproven anything I have stated, especially when I had to explain to you what your quotes are saying.

Last edited by TreeDoc; October 20th, 2017 at 10:20 PM.
TreeDoc is offline  
Old October 20th, 2017, 10:25 PM   #68
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 808
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeDoc View Post
Govt has the power to take your rights, whether they be absolute, natural, unalienable, or God given if you commit a crime or fail to pay your debts.

Do you still not comprehend what this says:
Some are natural, some were granted, all can be limited/taken.
Unalienable Rights cannot be taken. End of story. If you lose your Rights in our de jure/ constitutional Republic, you're doing it to yourself. By being a member of our society and interacting with the principals, you agree to be governed by them. The government cannot limit all Rights. YOU make that decision if you commit a crime so heinous that it takes away from another human being their unalienable Rights.
discollector is offline  
Old October 20th, 2017, 10:28 PM   #69
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 808
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeDoc View Post
Nothing you have quoted has disproven anything I have stated, especially when I had to explain to you what your quotes are saying.
You've explained nothing. You're wrong and unqualified to school me in a damn thing except cutting down trees. You proved that when you resorted to name calling. You don't have any legal experience nor do you have a working knowledge of history. I'm tired of the back and forth and you're risking being banned here if you keep trolling and calling me names.

Fair warning.
discollector is offline  
Old October 20th, 2017, 10:32 PM   #70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In a House
Posts: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
Not all Rights can be taken / limited by the government.

"Absolute Right - an unqualified right :a legally enforceable right to take some action or to refrain from acting at the sole discretion of the person having the right"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/absolute%20right

The Australian government, in defining INTERNATIONAL Rights, makes the definition abundantly and unequivocally clear:

"International human rights law recognises that few rights are absolute and reasonable limits may be placed on most rights and freedoms. Absolute rights, however, are distinguishable from non-absolute rights: see list in the box above.

Absolute rights cannot be limited for any reason. No circumstance justifies a qualification or limitation of absolute rights. Absolute rights cannot be suspended or restricted, even during a declared state of emergency
."

https://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProte...uterights.aspx

International law applies in the United States and I seriously doubt that the legal term absolute is different in different countries - especially when I've cited so many sources that state this fact.
Now lets point out what your link really says about the right to life:
Quote:
What is the distinction between absolute rights and non-derogable rights?

Non-derogable rights may be either absolute or non-absolute. While non-derogable rights cannot be suspended, some non-derogable rights provide for limitations in their ordinary application. For example, the right to freedom of religion in article 18 of the ICCPR is non-derogable under article 4(2) but may be subject to limitations in accordance with article 18(3). Article 6 of the ICCPR, which protects the right to life, is another example of a non-derogable right. This right, however, is expressed in part as freedom from 'arbitrary' deprivation of life. The use of the term 'arbitrary' indicates that circumstances may justify the taking of life, where necessary, reasonable and proportionate.
Whats that, your life can be taken in circumstances that justify taking it. LMFAO

Don't be so intellectually dishonest.
TreeDoc is offline  
Closed Thread

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Philosophy and Religion > Philosophy

Tags
nature, rights



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is it nature or LongWinded Philosophy 3 September 13th, 2015 03:47 PM
Clinton, Obama Promote Gay Rights As Human Rights Around The World Mom Gay and Lesbian Rights 22 December 8th, 2011 02:40 PM
Gay Animals in Nature tristanrobin Gay and Lesbian Rights 14 April 19th, 2010 05:12 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.