Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Grey Templar wrote:Ok, maybe my comparison is not as strong as I thought, but there is still one to be made.

Both involve rights that are being infringed on. Both involve using civil disobedience as a means of protest.


Unless we say our rights have varying levels of importance, which would be a subjective opinion from person to person, then the difference in importance is the same. Our right to bear arms is just as important as the right to not be discriminated against, and the right to vote, and the right to free speech, etc...

Thank you for reconsidering that statement.

As a side note, whilst the legal framework of the US constitution makes your new statement technically correct in the US, there is a strong argument that the right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of genetic factors you had no control is a far more universal human right than an (arguably) arbitrary right, such as the 2nd amendment grants. Just sayin', the right to purchase a consumer good really doesn't stack up against the right not to be tormented by virtue of your birth status.

When we realize that all rights are arbitrary there really is no reason for one right to be held in higher standing than another, unless you arbitrarily decide that is the case.

Some rights may be common across different governments and others may be unique to a specific government, but that doesn't mean one right is more important than another because it is more common.

It sort of cheapens the idea of rights if you can put hard fast levels on them. They're my rights as given by the Constitution, I'm sure as hell not giving them back.

I'd say you could consider the right to vote as higher than others, without a right to vote you have no rights at all.

I'd say there is a difference between inalienable human rights, and any sort of legal right. The right to live free from persecution is the former, while being able to purchase a piece of machinery without the proposed regulation is the latter.

dæl wrote:I'd say there is a difference between inalienable human rights, and any sort of legal right. The right to live free from persecution is the former, while being able to purchase a piece of machinery without the proposed regulation is the latter.

Thank you for stating my point far more eloquently than I was able to.

Ah but is it? In my personal opinion the right to self defense, and the tools to effectively defend yourself ARE a fundamental human right. If we have a right to life, we have a right to protect that life and the lives of those precious of us with the best means we have. So yes, I'd argue that self defense, and the right to take up weapons is absolutely an inalienable human right that no one should be denied.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Ah but is it? In my personal opinion the right to self defense, and the tools to effectively defend yourself ARE a fundamental human right. If we have a right to life, we have a right to protect that life and the lives of those precious of us with the best means we have. So yes, I'd argue that self defense, and the right to take up weapons is absolutely an inalienable human right that no one should be denied.

So would you be ok with a paranoid schizophrenic being in possession of firearms? Or somebody who has served time for violent offenses?
Also, do you think that every citizen should be given a free gun by the state?

Bullockist wrote:
I misread "long arms" as "loaded arms" my mistake.

Well they could have preternaturally long arms too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Incorrect. until a crime of violence occurs it is by default a peaceful protest.

Only in the narrow legal definition. However, you know as well as I that there is quite a difference between a legal definition and a general one.

No its the correct definition. Until violence has occurred its nonviolent. Only a nattering nabob peacenik hippy would get a simple "if then" screwed up. Else everyone walking everywhere are being violent, because hey you know something could happen. Same for everyone driving as well, because theirs nothing more lethal than an automobile. Trains are pretty dangerous too. There should be a law against those multiton killing machinez O Death.

 dæl wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Really examine the situation. Both are over very similar types of issues. And the way they are attacking it is very similar.

Yes, I can absolutely see how not wanting to be discriminated against because of the colour of one's skin is exactly the same as not wanting to have slightly more strict gun laws that hope to reduce the frequency of gun related fatalities. What absolute nonsense, did you actually think before you typed that?

And a Brit would say that.

I don't mind you guys having guns, that's between you and your government. It's the comparison between this protest and the civil rights movement that I take issue with.

The right to bear arms and the right to equal protection under the law are both constitutional rights with equal weight.

Protesting jim crow laws and protesting gun control laws is a valid legal parallel.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
The right to bear arms and the right to equal protection under the law are both constitutional rights with equal weight.

Protesting jim crow laws and protesting gun control laws is a valid legal parallel.

I think that's where a lot of the hang up is. They are equal, but many don't see them as such.

Yep.

 djones520 wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
The right to bear arms and the right to equal protection under the law are both constitutional rights with equal weight.

Protesting jim crow laws and protesting gun control laws is a valid legal parallel.

I think that's where a lot of the hang up is. They are equal, but many don't see them as such.

The right to not be discriminated against is not the same as the right to bear arms, one is an inalienable human right which cannot be taken away, the other is already restricted (no nukes, alas) and for some is restricted even more (felons). They aren't equal as one is covered under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 7), and is part of international law.

 dæl wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
The right to bear arms and the right to equal protection under the law are both constitutional rights with equal weight.

Protesting jim crow laws and protesting gun control laws is a valid legal parallel.

I think that's where a lot of the hang up is. They are equal, but many don't see them as such.

The right to not be discriminated against is not the same as the right to bear arms, one is an inalienable human right which cannot be taken away, the other is already restricted (no nukes, alas) and for some is restricted even more (felons). They aren't equal as one is covered under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 7), and is part of international law.

Well... that's nice, but in the US they are.

Both are inalienable human rights in the US under the Constitution, Brit.

 Frazzled wrote:
Both are inalienable human rights in the US under the Constitution, Brit.

So you cannot restrict anyone's right to bear arms? Not paranoid schizophrenics in institutions? Or convicted murderers?

 dæl wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Both are inalienable human rights in the US under the Constitution, Brit.

So you cannot restrict anyone's right to bear arms? Not paranoid schizophrenics in institutions? Or convicted murderers?

The Supreme Court has determined that you can. But, that is another function of our government built in by our governing document (which is not the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

 dæl wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Both are inalienable human rights in the US under the Constitution, Brit.

So you cannot restrict anyone's right to bear arms? Not paranoid schizophrenics in institutions? Or convicted murderers?

All rights can be restricted.

 djones520 wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Both are inalienable human rights in the US under the Constitution, Brit.

So you cannot restrict anyone's right to bear arms? Not paranoid schizophrenics in institutions? Or convicted murderers?

The Supreme Court has determined that you can. But, that is another function of our government built in by our governing document (which is not the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

Then it is not an inalienable right then is it?

 dæl wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Both are inalienable human rights in the US under the Constitution, Brit.

So you cannot restrict anyone's right to bear arms? Not paranoid schizophrenics in institutions? Or convicted murderers?

The Supreme Court has determined that you can. But, that is another function of our government built in by our governing document (which is not the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

Then it is not an inalienable right then is it?

I didn't say it was. I was just saying the right's gauranteed by the 2nd amendment are equally as strong as those gauranteed by the others, within the US.

 djones520 wrote:

I didn't say it was. I was just saying the right's gauranteed by the 2nd amendment are equally as strong as those gauranteed by the others, within the US.

But if one is inalienable and another isn't then their strength is not equal, now is it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Both are inalienable human rights in the US under the Constitution, Brit.

So you cannot restrict anyone's right to bear arms? Not paranoid schizophrenics in institutions? Or convicted murderers?

All rights can be restricted.

You've contradicted yourself.

Nope. Nothing is unfettered.

 dæl wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

I didn't say it was. I was just saying the right's gauranteed by the 2nd amendment are equally as strong as those gauranteed by the others, within the US.

But if one is inalienable and another isn't then their strength is not equal, now is it?

All rights are alienable. It happens every day, all over the world.

If they weren't some mystical forcefield would appear to people everytime someone tried to stomp on their rights.

I believe mr. Jefferson the only Inalienable rights were life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence.

The Bill of Rights in the Constitituion are not inalienable rights, but legal rights provided by the Constitution, but not inalienable human rights "Endowed by their Creator". That is why the feds and the States can have different interpretations. That being said, all the Amendments int eh Constitution bear equal weight under the law. However, they were written in such a way to allow for interpreation by the government.

Granted, the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, but more guiding principles, while the Constitution is an explicitly a legal document.

Dang, I'm not sure if what I wrote made any sense.

 djones520 wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

I didn't say it was. I was just saying the right's gauranteed by the 2nd amendment are equally as strong as those gauranteed by the others, within the US.

But if one is inalienable and another isn't then their strength is not equal, now is it?

All rights are alienable. It happens every day, all over the world.

If they weren't some mystical forcefield would appear to people everytime someone tried to stomp on their rights.

We both know we are not discussing rights not being respected or upheld, when they are legally removed from someone that is very different. Race discrimination is an inalienable right, it is never legally restricted, same as the right to life over here. When you have two sets of rights and one is never restricted, and is also covered under international law, and is seen as more important by a reasonable person, then the other, which is always restricted, sometimes more heavily for some, then it stands to reason that the former is a natural right, while the latter is a legal right. You don't seem to quite understand that there is more in play here than your constitution.

Race discrimination is never legally restricted? Er...what???

 Frazzled wrote:
Race discrimination is never legally restricted? Er...what???

Yeah... whembly is confused too...

 Frazzled wrote:
Race discrimination is never legally restricted? Er...what???

My wording was a little confused, apologies. You have a right to be treated as equal before the law, that right is never legally restricted.

 azazel the cat wrote:
An armed march is what it is. Let's just call a spade: a spade.

I stand my my assertion. You have continually used provocative and incorrect language when discussing this issue. Now it appears that you're arguing "Only in the narrow legal definition. However, you know as well as I that there is quite a difference between a legal definition and a general one."

 azazel the cat wrote:
I suspect that definition of "coordination" is being used so broadly that it is synonymous with "telling the police we're gonna do this". That's not really coordination; as coordination implies a tacit level of endorsement, which I'm fairly certain will not be the case; particularly given the response of the chief of police as stated in the OP's article.

You are entitled to your opinion. However given your use of inflammatory and incorrect action, as well as inferring the worst motives upon the marchers it has to be asked whether you are being objective.

 azazel the cat wrote:
A rifle slung over one's shoulder, or in a side carry amounts to the same thing. You might have a case if the rifle was tucked away inside a rifle bag and slung over the shoulder, but anytime the firearm is visible it serves the same effect as a knife being brandished. And "brandished" is definitely the correct term, because this is very much an ostentatious display (that's kinda the entire point to this protest). I'm really not trying to use emotional and loaded language, but the problem is that the mere observational facts happen to be highly charged by their nature, and I refuse to perform the spin-doctoring necessary in order to prevent such. That is, if a group of people are marching whilst armed, it is an armed march. But I will retract the use of "gunmen"; it was meant to imply men wielding guns and was used improperly, as the term itself colloquially denotes criminal acts, so that one was my error.

To say that walking along the street, during a lawful public protest march with an unloaded rifle (and a public declaration of such) on a sling and not operating the firearm in a threatening manner is the same as approaching someone on a street with a drawn blade is not the same. To claim otherwise is a gross distortion of any reasonable factual basis to shore up a shaky premise.
Again, the definition of brandished is to wave or flourish (something, esp. a weapon) as a threat or in anger or excitement. An unloaded rifle on a sling, or an unloaded pistol in a holster cannot fall within that definition. To insist that it can is not reasonable, especially when demonstrated that no legal basis of threat exists.
While you claim that you may be trying to avoid emotional language, and I appreciate it, your posts above are littered with examples of it (as already outlined) which polarise the debate by painting an inaccurate picture of the protest and are more likely to help inflame the situation.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Incorrect. until a crime of violence occurs it is by default a peaceful protest.

Only in the narrow legal definition. However, you know as well as I that there is quite a difference between a legal definition and a general one.

I'm sorry but I have to agree with Frazzled on this. Until violence is used any protest is peaceful. That should not be controversial

 dæl wrote:
[Race discrimination is an inalienable right, it is never legally restricted, same as the right to life over here. When you have two sets of rights and one is never restricted, and is also covered under international law, and is seen as more important by a reasonable person, then the other, which is always restricted, sometimes more heavily for some, then it stands to reason that the former is a natural right, while the latter is a legal right. You don't seem to quite understand that there is more in play here than your constitution.

Does the death penalty make the right to life "inalienable"?

You're making a very strange argument.

And no, there's not anything more in play than the Constitution.

WASPs descend on Washington for an angry march about their guns?

I find the white middle class of the US about as scary as a bowl of rice crispies (snap! crackle! pop!).

Half of those who show up will give up on the idea when they realize they don't get issued with shopping mall fat carts for the 'long and arduous' journey. Half of what's left after that will keep having to take breaks for their insulin shots and asthma . And half of what's left after that will write very angry letter to the Fascislammunist Overlord, screaming at him for his godless and unconstitutional lack of public amenities and burger stands on their march for LIBERTY(tm).

I also can't wait for the tears and rage from their banshee wives into news cameras over those that are stupid enough to march illegally through the streets with an armed gun and get put in the slammer with *gasp* criminals and nere'dowells.... and.... people of color! **back of hand to forehead**