Amnesty and my membership in the Republican party

[innerSpaceman]

Oh, and see ... I completely disagree about rights and privileges. I don't believe rights are absolute, but neither are things like driving or flying "privileges."

Cars exist. If I can demonstrate an ability to drive one safely, I have a right to drive one. A government should deny me a license based on my lack of driving proficiency, not - say - on the color of my skin or my political activities.

Similarly, the "right" to fly. It's a service available in the common marketplace. United Airlines has the right to deny me, but the U.S. government does not. I also have the right to shop at Vons. The right to use a cell phone. The right to do all sorts of things that don't harm others. That's called freedom. And it's not limited to things specifically mentioned by name in the U.S. Constitution.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

And it's not limited to things specifically mentioned by name in the U.S. Constitution.

I completely agree. The rights listed in the Constitution are not a specific enumeration of all rights that exist.

And I can see your point on the government denying someone the "right" to fly vs. a private entity refusing service to you. With that in mind, there was the recent story of a group of Imams that were flying on some airline, and several passengers were nervous because the men had been supposedly uttering antiAmerican phrases during boarding (or some such thing - I don't exactly recall the details). Did that airline act withint their rights as a private entity in removing those men from the flight? Or should their lawsuit be permitted to procede because of discrimination?

With what you have said about rights....you are a gun control supporter if I recall. If I own a fully automatic weapon, how has that harmed anyone? Even if the right to bear arms was just directed at a well regulated militia (and I do not subscribe to that interpretation), do I not have the right to own that fully automatic weapon? I haven't harmed anyone in the simple ownership, yet it has been deemed by society that I cannot have it. We can go through all the arguments of "what do you need that for, blah, blah, blah", but the point remains.

Certain limitations have been placed on individual rights for the (supposed) benefit to society. Insert the law you most disagree with here, whether that is drug usage or prostitution orr selling ones body parts.

I don't see a no fly list as different than any of those other things....something that society has deemed acceptable even though it is a curtailing of what an individual can do at any specific time.

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I completely agree. The rights listed in the Constitution are not a specific enumeration of all rights that exist.

So says the Ninth Amendment, but I don't think the Supreme Court has ever tried to figure out what that means.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

So says the Ninth Amendment, but I don't think the Supreme Court has ever tried to figure out what that means.

We all disagree with various rulings of the Supreme Court. I would guess (though I cannot be certain) that you may be a proponent of certain decisions that place limitations on various listed Constitutional protections as well as non-specific. I really do not propose to know for sure. Even the staunchest civil libertarians might support smoking bans on private property or campaign finance laws.

All I know is that the second amendment says I can have firearms, but there are laws restricting that freedom. I know the first amendment says I can say what I want, but there are laws on the books that prohibit ads critical of elected officials 60 days prior to an election.

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

We all disagree with various rulings of the Supreme Court. I would guess (though I cannot be certain) that you may be a proponent of certain decisions that place limitations on various listed Constitutional protections as well as non-specific. I really do not propose to know for sure. Even the staunchest civil libertarians might support smoking bans on private property or campaign finance laws.

All I know is that the second amendment says I can have firearms, but there are laws restricting that freedom. I know the first amendment says I can say what I want, but there are laws on the books that prohibit ads critical of elected officials 60 days prior to an election.

If you support the idea of non-specific constitutional protections, you're more liberal than I thought.

Is there a level of destructive power, the possession of which you would think could be prohibited?

The First Amendment has been interpreted to permit reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. Everyone can't parade down the street at the same time or block the steps to City Hall. The law you describe sounds like it goes beyond that and restricts content.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

Is there a level of destructive power, the possession of which you would think could be prohibited?

The problem with this, whether I think there is a level or not, is that there are thousands (millions?) of differing opinions as to what could (or should) be prohibited. This doesn't just go for firearms, but for any right, enumerated or not.

Even as a non smoker it fries me that private property owners can't allow smoking on their property. A majority clearly believes this ban is OK.

So we come down to a line where society determines, whether through the courts, passage of laws, or a popular vote, as to where the right to whatever should begin and end.

In regards to firearms, I see no reason as to why someone should need a fully automatic firearm. Someone else may have what they believe to be a valid reason. Therefore, why not just allow the possession and prosecute any crime that comes as a result of that possession? Same with drugs. Why is it that someone can't shoot heroin if they so choose? As long as they pay for their own healthcare and don't commit crimes to gain that heroin, then what harm has come?

Same with smoking, fatty food, seatbelt laws, helmet laws, prostitution, selling my left kidney or cornea, and whatever other kind of law there may be. If I'm willing to take the responsibility for my actions, I should pretty much be able to do what I want. The problem? No one wants to take responsibility for their actions. It isn't the fault of the smoker for getting lung cancer, it's those tricky tobacco companies.

However....society has deemed that certain things are harmful to society and are therefore disallowed. I have my issues that bug me, you have yours, as does everyone. Debates such as this will rage for eternity because there will never be agreement as to what should be allowed or restricted in the name of freedom.