Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No. The Constitution says no such thing - but exactly the opposite. All rights exist by law. Get that through your cold dead head!
Really...
How did we "ordain and establish" something that we had no right to do?
The Constitution was precisely that, if your argument holds water that rights exist by law, then we had no right to ordain and establish anything, as at the time of writing, there was no law in real terms, there were laws of the States, but they did not provide the right to create a superstate of the United States. You can check this out for yourself, look for states consitutions and articles prior to the establishment of the Constitution, or the Articles of Confederation.
By your definition not only is the Constitution null and void, but all other laws pertaining to the constitution, it's instruments, and branches are also null and void.
Or the alternative is that you're wrong, and all rights are above the law, and such rights as are ceded to managed under law may be regulated under that law. If this is indeed the case, then as the right to self defense, and by extension the right to bear arms in self defense was not explicitly ceded, then that right cannot be regulated under law without the agreement of the people.
Which is it? We have an invalid government and document? Or rights are above the law?
Shall I cite the studies showing that more women don't even bother pressing charges than women who do, largely because of attitudes like yours that prevail in many police and court systems?
Not that you care. You've made up your mind that women are lying, thieving sluts, so evidence to the contrary will be wasted on your and your kind.
And yes, I divorced an abuser. I'd love to add my tales, but the cons here would revel in it and mock me no end, so I decline.
So others should suffer because of your past? Liberalism on display.
So others should suffer because of your past? Liberalism on display.
Others should suffer because there are many, many, many cases of real actual domestic violence. Those who do commit the violence shouldn't be excused because every case isn't an actual case of abuse.
Others should suffer because there are many, many, many cases of real actual domestic violence. Those who do commit the violence shouldn't be excused because every case isn't an actual case of abuse.
So better that a innocent man be punished then we let one go free?
To wit-better that 10 guilty men go free then 1 innocent man be punished. Its part of the whole "beyond a reasonable doubt" thing that we practice. And thats the thing here....it IS better that some guilty go free-even of murder-in order to avoid punishing the innocent.
And when a statute becomes abused so badly, a lot of innocents are getting hurt by it. Punishing them so that a few that are guilty get punished is immoral.
To wit-better that 10 guilty men go free then 1 innocent man be punished. Its part of the whole "beyond a reasonable doubt" thing that we practice. And thats the thing here....it IS better that some guilty go free-even of murder-in order to avoid punishing the innocent.
Which is why we have trials. Does the criminal justice system ever get it wrong? Yes, but despite your attempts to appear otherwise you do not support everyone going free for whatever they do because we do on occasion err.
Which is why we have trials. Does the criminal justice system ever get it wrong? Yes, but despite your attempts to appear otherwise you do not support everyone going free for whatever they do because we do on occasion err.
Restraining orders don't initially have trials as they are granted without the other party being present, and a challenge to them takes months. Then they are considered "administrative" . Funny thing that.
The others....yes we have trials, but no the burden of proof often isn't required. Kinda weird hey?
What I support is that if someone is going to have basic rights stripped from them-they should be allowed a jury trial FIRST, or have clear physical evidence. not a he said/she said.
What I support is that the burden of proof should not be on the person losing their rights.
And yes I DO know this will mean people will die. Im not ignorant of that. I don't like it, but I firmly believe that rights are worth some deaths.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
