Skip to comments.There Are No ‘Absolute’ Rights
Posted on 05/05/2013 10:11:14 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Every time I write a column on guns, the howl arises that I am talking about a right that is enshrined in the Constitution, buddy, and I better watch myself. The howl then transmutes into an extended harangue that this right is absolute, and no libtard fascist, whether me or the Satanesque Dianne Feinstein, is going to limit the right in any way. The first soldier to charge across this rhetorical veld is followed by hundreds harrumphing their assent. The only problem is that its an ahistorical, afactual, and barbaric argument. No right is absolute. In fact, the Second Amendment arguably has fewer restrictions on it these days than many of the other first ten, and there is and should be no guarantee that things are going to stay that way. In fact, if were ever going to be serious about trying to stop this mass butchery that we endure every few months, they cannot.
Lets begin by going down the list and reviewing various limits placed on nearly all the amendments of the Bill of Rights (I thank Doug Kendall of the Constitutional Accountability Center for helping me out here). The First Amendment, of course, guarantees the right to free speech and assembly, and to worship as one pleases. There havent been that many restrictions placed on the freedom to worship in the United States, although there is a steady stream of cases involving some local government or school board preventing someone from wearing religious clothing or facial hair or what have you. Sometimes a Christian school or church is denied a zoning permit; but more often its the freedom to worship of a minority (Muslim, Sikh, etc) that is threatened.
As for free speech....
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
just another a$$ hat
I honestly wish we could leave these people in the hell hole they want to live in.
What he means is the only absolute right belongs to his own islamo/socialist/nazists.
They can’t chop his head off fast enough for me.
Not just another A$$ Hat, He’s a Captain A$$ Hat looking to be promoted to Major A$$ Hat!
I don’t get it...why are we wasting time on this fascist?
This is a stupid, disingenuous example. The law he describes in no way interferes with freedom of speech. It simply says that you can't say certain things and expect to get government funding. Since there can be no inherent inalienable right to government funding, there is no violation of any right here.
“...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security...”
Now if you want to do away with self evident truths such as the God given right to self defense, then read what good citizens should do.
wait..... I know this one...
"Know they enemy" and "Expose his lies".
YOU’RE KIDDING! NRA pushes guns on kids as young as Newtown victims in sick ‘Youth Day’
Is the rest of the article as bad as the excerpt?
It was our forefather's intention that we were to be their masters and that means they intended for us to be well armed and for them to be small and minimally obtrusive.
It is Michael Tomasky, after all. If Keith Olberman and Gary Younge had a love child.....
Can we all agree that I absolutely have the right to bear arms on your property whether you permit it or not and any law saying I don’t have that right is an infringement?
I wonder if the writer believes there are any ‘absolute’ lefts ?
Since you absolutely have no right to be on my property without my permission, then whether you do or don't happen to be bearing arms while you are violating my property rights is irrelevant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.