OUR rights were outlined to limit the GOVERNMENT from impeding on them. There is absolutely no where in the Constitution which grants the government the right to limit our rights. There is nothing that says "Free speech EXCEPT hate" or "Keep and bear arms EXCEPT outside the home." The idea that our rights can be limited was made up by the very government this is supposed to be limited so they can ignore our rights.
Here are the top political news stories for today.
Government exists to maintain civil order and "to effect [the] Safety and Happiness" of the People. When one person's actions impact another's interests, it is entirely proper for government to regulate those actions. Free speech does not protect one's right to incite a riot (yell fire in a crowded theater). Rights are absolutely limited. The absence of limits is anarchy.
@PacifistRaisinsGreen2yrs2Y
And a proper test for rights being impaired is when one person uses force or fraud against another. Absent that, there is no rights violation at all.
ok armchair lawyer. its not like we have centuries of case law and legal experience to figure this out. Each amendment on the bill of rights has its own tests, that courts have came up with through the centuries after studying issues that come up.
@PacifistRaisinsGreen2yrs2Y
Thanks for the promotion! Certainly I am no lawyer, although I very much admire those lawyers who think in fundamentals associated with liberty and the right all of us have to live as we choose, with one caveat: the use of force or fraud against another is immoral, unjust, and ultimately irrational.
To a rational person, who wants to live their life as they choose, in pursuit of their own happiness and values, they must also afford all others that same ability. It is irrational to expect that rights violating criminal or civl actions taken by yourself should not be allowed to others. More simply, crime should not pay.
Problem is not by executive order, need congress...you want a rabbit hole, read the ATF def of a firearm, then try to pin the tail on the donkey (AR-15 lower)...doesn't meet the definition of the laws we've enforced for 30 years.
DOJ has dropped a bunch of gun cases where the defense was going to argue an AR lower doesn't meet the definition of a firearm, so why is it regulated? The DOJ and WH (regardless of who's in it) hasn't wanted any federal court to get ahold of this one, but the issues are essentially the same as bump stocks, you want change work with congress.
Join in on more popular conversations.
