My point is that the "rights" given in the bill of rights don't always affect you either. I have never had to worry about "double jeopardy" nor "self-incrimination", yet I still feel it's an important right to have.

As far as the Patriot Act is concerned, it has provisions which violate the basic tenets of the Fourth Amendment dealing with searches and warrants. It may not affect you personally, but that doesn't mean it doesn't infringe upon rights.

And this goes back to the thing I mentioned about viewing things idealistically versus pragmatically.

If I'm looking at this through an idealistic lens, then yeah, maybe I get riled up over the feds being able to access my library checkout history.

But if I'm looking at it through a pragmatic lens, which I usually do, then I honestly don't fucking care. Sure, I can trot out a hypothetical about what IF the government taps my phone and does this or that without a warrant, etc., but that's just mental masturbation to try and illustrate a point.

_________________


Okay, so maybe that pass rush is still an issue. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Just out of curiosity, what is the precise percentage of Americans who want to see the 2nd Ammendment repealed? I think there are lots of Americans who realize that firearms go far beyond the average musket and that it is reasonable to put certain restrictions in place when it comes to procurring them, but where is this ground swell to ban all but the smallest percentage of them?

Anyone who voted for option #1 should be deported to another country. Our government would have no freaking idea what they were doing by modifying the bill of rights. Our elected officials are no where near as intelligent and aware of history as the founding fathers were.

Disagreeing with the establishment should be means for deportation?

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

It's not "disagreeing with the establishment", it's presenting extreme ignorance of why the Bill of Rights was created. Ok, maybe not deported, but stripped of their right to vote.

Yeah, even better! No voice to those who disagree!

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

Yep. No voice for those who want to take the rights away that we fought so hard to obtain.

If they want to take away rights, then why not their right to vote?

I have heard polls (gallup comes to mind) that put the number around 25 % of americans who want an all out gun ban/repeal of 2nd amendment with only exceptions for proper authorities. That would mean that 1 out of every 4 people surveyed believe that we should not just limit access, but restrict it from the average citizen. 25% may or may not be what volsung or you believe is a large contingent of the minority, but I think that if 25% of the population believes something then it is something that is more common than just a "handful" of vocal people.

One of the fundamental things with the Bill of Rights is how it is designed to default to the individual rights as opposed to government rights, while at the same time allowing for wiggle room in certain areas which are either privileges or have allowance already in a controlled free market system.

For example: the difference between health care and freedom of speech boils down to the fact that the market cannot adjust for the allowance of free speech, whereas it can allow for a competitive environment of health care options to thrive. One can either speak their mind without fear of repercussion or not, but the need for adding health care to the bill of rights isn't necessary because it is allowable as is every other type of free enterprise under the Constitution. One can argue that health care is a basic human right, but the line is drawn between affording innate human rights and mandating the offering of goods and services to maintain basic human standards.

For example, health and medical care could be argued by the same token that "three square meals and a bed" can be. Those are essential to human survival. But those are also goods and services allowable under our economic system for procurement. The constitution does not mandate the government provide anything for her citizens, only that she keep distance on issues that are our innate rights.

The same applies to the second amendment. The government provides neither goods nor services, but rather is forbidden from prohibiting the ownership of arms, as a fail safe to tyranny.

Really delving into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is a very daunting and interesting task. I've done a ton of it over the past few weeks while researching my current work in progress. You guys all have some great ideas and opinions. I'd really love to see more of you respond to the thread about that.

_________________
I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.

You want to take away my right to vote though...

Maybe you should take some time and think before you post something. This isn't the play-nice forum.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

I think you missed my point, but that's okay.

No, I think your point is shitty.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

I think my point is good. If someone wants to take away rights from the Bill of Rights, then they should have their right to vote taken away. It's a fair trade-off.

The Bill of Rights was not created by God. Even James Madison debated that each generation should craft it's own Constitution.

It's not a fair trade-off, it's a stupid remark out of someone who "loves" America yet hates everything that makes it great.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

Assumptions do not form a valid argument.

I think you've been poll-trolled. Hah!

So you've heard of these polls but you haven't actually seen them, nor scrutinized them in any way? You are usually pretty meticulous, so this weak evidence from you is pretty surprising.

I could probably dig up numbers if they were important, but since this is merely secondary to the actual topic at hand, I just went off of the numbers I've read & heard in the past from pollsters on the subject. If it's so important to you, I know you can google search as easy as the next guy. The actual number of people who have the belief. I just put the number out there as a representation to volsung of what my opinion constitutes a large contingency of the minority and a higher number than what I would consider the extreme side of either party, which I put at under 10%. I figured putting numbers to my opinion would help us diffuse any confusion as to what I was using to constitute a "large contingent of the majority"

Poppycock.