Firearms

[Shell B]

Yes, they can, but are they then rights? Does the ability to do something make it a right?

[popeyespappy]

Hobbes, Locke and Thomas Paine all subscribed to theories of natural rights apart and separate from legal rights. They considered natural rights not contingent on laws, customs or beliefs. They considered natural rights universal and inalienable.

This country was founded on the principle that all power is vested in the people. The Constitution grants portions of that power to the different branches of the government. As such it is the government that has no rights until the people relinquish their rights to the government. Not vice versa.

[Minimalist]

....and some of those people are really fucked up. I heard about this in the news but only the Daily Show can do it right.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-ap...p-for-guns


Ah yes, Errorzona. What a dump.

[Violet]

Why do I like cracker barrel?

Because for $10 I can eat a meal so large that I won't need to eat for several hours. That means I can get by some days on $15 a day. This is exceptional when you're traveling.

* Violet shudders at spending 15$ a day on food 0.o

But then... not eating any food in a day also has its drawbacks.

---

Yes, they can, but are they then rights? Does the ability to do something make it a right?

Eyup.

Rights are silly ideas

[NoraBrimstone]

$15 a DAY on food? Holy shit!

[thesummerqueen]

When traveling.

At home, when you go proper grocery shopping, not so much.

Although I suppose it depends on how you eat. I haven't worked up a cost per plate for breakfast and dinner, but lunches "out" during work hours usually cost around $10. So you could conceivably be eating at $15 a day every work day.

Me, I try to bring lunch most of the time.

[Tiberius]

But here's something I think we have to agree to disagree on. I don't think it's fair to compare the Bill of Rights, which were beginning to be penciled almost immediately after the Constitution was ratified, to amendments much later on in history. The original document was not interested so much in addressing the people's rights, but more to establish a strong central government. The Bill of Rights was the government's way in securing the American people's rights.

They're considered "amendments", but hell, there were people and states objecting to even ratifying the Constitution without the promise of a Bill of Rights. They're so close to one another, to compare the Bill of Rights to say, the 20th amendment, is unfair, in my opinion.

But I'm not comparing them. I'm just stating the fact that they are amendments, and they were not part of the original constitution. To class them as such would be historically and factually inaccurate. Whilst it's true that the rights held in the Bill of Rights were popular at the time, they were not in the original constitution.

Indeed, the fact that the constitution was ratified without them, despite some objections, shows that the majority of ratifiers were not too concerned with them not being there. After all, they had the ability to add amendments, which they did within a couple of years.

None of that affects my actual argument.