Question for those who say they are losing rights in the US

Originally posted by DarthAwesome
My right to financial freedom has been taken away by an unfair class system, greedy corporations, and the federal government which seems to think the corporations are the nation they serve. This right has been infringed on a state level by local government who have given my state an exorbant (sp) amount of debt which has raised the price of EVERYTHING. From milk to rent to school clothes for my kids.

Please show me where it states you have an individual right to financial freedom.

as far as your state goes, I would check to see if your state has a balanced budget amendment.

reply to post by ur86d


The Supreme Court decisions doesnt agreew ith your interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

They stated the right to have a weapon is the right of the individual.

The ability to regulate how that happens is reserved to the states.

You are no being prohibited from purchasing / owning a weapon.
You are not being prohibted from transporting that weapon.
You are not being prohibited from carrying a weapon cioncealed.

Originally posted by kalamatas
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

What about when a state law gives you the "right" to do something, but the federal government law states it's illegal and comes into that state and arrests someone who is abiding by state law?

yeah reference the plant situation out West.

The Supremacy Clause comes to mind at the Federal Level, in addition to the CSA, which has been around for some time. A person will need to be injured under the Federal actions in order to gain standing to challenge it in court, just as Washington, Oregon and Montanna have legalized physician assisted suicides, even though the actions of those physicians are in violation of their oaths and the CSA.

If you believe in something, fight for it.

For instance, the plant dilemma. The majority of people in other states dont share the same view, and therefore its illegal in those states. We live in a Representative republic, not a democracy, and as such, sometimes the other person wins.

If you dont agree with the law, and do nothing the change it, instead just ignoring it, then do you have a right to complain if you are caught with the item? Its not a secret its illegal to possess it. Also, its one thing to be in your house, who cares. When you decide ti bring it into public, what gives you the right to place others in danger?

The supreme court is wrong then, but can you site the case law?... so i can read this judgement? i think you have it wrong...and the reason i think you DO have it wrong, is because of the amount of states in recent years which have started allowing open carry without need for a permit...if you take a look at statewide gun laws..there has been a drastic change.

reply to post by Heyyo_yoyo

reply to post by Xcathdra

When you decide ti bring it into public, what gives you the right to place others in danger?

I have a question on this matter. What exactly is dangerous about bringing a substance such as marijuana into public? How could this be even compared to the dangers of substances that are already regulated such as cigarettes and their very harmful second hand smoke?

"http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us/29scotus.html"

And this article is all i can find at the moment, so i would definitely enjoy more reading on it..if you have it

In new jersey you ARE being stopped from bearing the arms...they dont allow open carry, and they will not issue a concealed carry permit unless you can prove you are in immediate danger, or are a LEO... thats an infringement...these restrictions dont apply to felons..they apply to honest law abiding citizens..say yes..the right to bear is being infringed...

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier
Then Denial?

Oh denial is defintitely there, and is evident wuith the responses to date in this thread by people.

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier
I beg to differ

Why shouldnt they? Is it wrong to learn and be open minded? Is it wrong to have more than one opinion or solution to a problem? Is it wrong to point that out?

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier
Who said it did? Are you putting words in my mouth? Shame on you. I provided 2 instances of proof that our rights have been encroached on> however the patriot act and TSA have something in common. They are used as an excuse to strip us of our rights because of 911

Actually no, you invoke the Patriot Act then dance around the subject of what rights were taken fro you with its passage. You invoke theTSA and the 4th amendment, when you dont unserstand how either work.

This goes back to my comment about peope needing to wake up, which they very much need to do. If for no other reason than they could come into threads like this and know what they are talking about.

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier
Irrelevant, it is simply downgrading our right to travel. People who work and required to travel by flight have to go through TSA. So you are wrong, they have to and this infringes on our way of life and right to privacy.

Its very much releveant and is the basis for the argument of a right being violated or not. You have absiolutely no expectation of privacy in public, including airports. You are not forced to go through security, and you are not forced to fly. if you dont like something, drive, walk or catch a train.

Not a hard concept to understand.

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier
I have and I have

I dont doubt you have been present however I question the perceived rights violations as being nothing more than your personal opinion and based on fact or law. It appears that people are pissed at the government they want to latch onto anything they can just to "stick it to the man" while at the same time remaining blissfully ignorant of how it weorks and affects them.

Your rights end the moment they interfere with the rights of others. Not accepting that principle places you into the same category as what you clim the government is doing to you. The difference being when it comes to you, you dont care about other peopls rights, and therefore arent cognizant of it.

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier
You mean when they did not take naked pictures of me back then with a x ray machine. Infringement to a lesser degree then IF i was doing something wrong. However if i am minding my own business and then i am treated like a slab of meat then well i am being violated.

Again you can decline the scanner, as well as everything else assocaieted with a security checkpoint. Take the bus or walk to your destination.

You arent being forced..

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier
If i did nothing wrong probably discrimination of some sort or someone with a power trip is abusing authority

Which is expected from a person who doesnt understand the arguemnt or how government works. A private business can refuse service to you regardless. An airline is a private business, and as such can say no, you arent flying today. If you think your being discriminated against, you can avail yourself of the Judicial system.

If your rights were taken away, you wouldbndt even be able to do that.

However it does highlight an issue poeople seem to be having. You and other percieve any action taken against you without meeting your level of justification, as illegal, when its anything but. This goes back to being knoweldgeable and how thigns work. Absent that, you are going to continue going through life as a self perceived victim.

[

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier
Someone all ready pointed that out , read it in bold
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I ahve read it, and the question stands. You guys are the ones stating it strips your rights, yet you cant seem to point them out. The Patriot act invocation is an attempt to sidestep the issue, which ultimately is you have no idea how the government works, how your rights work and what theose rights are and where they stop.

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier
Umm i gave you 2 instances, and said there is much more the patriot act in answers your question in your original line of questioning. It is he elephant in the room, the one you want to call a lamp.

they dont answer the question and ar in no way releveant to the topic. Try again,.

Im sorry if my questions are forcing you to think beyond yourself. Im not trolling, but thank you for proving my point.

Originally posted by masterp
Doesn't the Patriot Act introduce infinite detainment without a trial when the charge is terrorism?

Isn't that a violation of the right to a fair trial?

No it does not, and no it does not.

Originally posted by Pixiefyre
Here's something that might surprise many US citizens.

You do NOT have the right to live with your spouse in the US

REally? source

reply to post by xMoralDeclinex


Actually no I am correct in it. You need to read the entire court ruling in addition to familiarizing yourself with the cases that occured that forced the change in law and the subsequent court cases resulting from it.

Originally posted by blah yada
Most Americans do not even know their rights or how easily they can be unwittingly waived.

which is my point...

how can you claim something has been taken from you, when the person has no idea what they had to begin with? How can we fix the government, when people dont know what the government it or how it operates?

Originally posted by ur86d
The supreme court is wrong then, but can you site the case law?... so i can read this judgement? i think you have it wrong...and the reason i think you DO have it wrong, is because of the amount of states in recent years which have started allowing open carry without need for a permit...if you take a look at statewide gun laws..there has been a drastic change.

The most recent Supreme Court rulings dealing with an individual right to bear arms.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S.Ct. 3020 (2010)

In DC V. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that the right to bear arms applies to the individual, and struck down DC's law on how a person can be in lawful possession of a gun, how that gun must be transported etc.

The basis of DC's argument what the 2nd amendment didnt apply to the individual - The ruling corrected that view.

In McDonald V. Chiacgo is was essentially the same argument. Chicago had very restrictive gun ownerships laws in the City. This case was based of of the DC ruling, and the outcome of this ruling was to apply the 2nd Amendment to the states, which had not been done before in the amanner of applying to the individual.

Nowhere in those cases does it strike down any laws that allow the states to regulate the firearms within their boundaires. All the courts answered was the fundamental question of does the 2nd amendment apply to the states, or the individual.

as far as what can occur within the state in terms of open carry and what not, is not a 2nd amendment issue in the sense of being able to own a firearm.

WASHINGTON — The Second Amendment’s guarantee of an individual right to bear arms applies to state and local gun control laws, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a 5-to-4 decision The ruling came almost exactly two years after the court first ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns in District of Columbia v. Heller, another 5-to-4 decision.


So it's not the latest...and with this ruling..New Jersey, is restricting the right to bear...you can not even take courses to be trained and qualify for the CCW they require...they simply will not issue the permit the require without you proving you are in immediate danger.

"http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us/29scotus.html"

reply to post by Xcathdra


To quote the last statement in the Supreme Court Ruling:

In sum, we hold that Indiana the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law

Please explain how that is not violating the 4th amendment.

Originally posted by xMoralDeclinex
I have a question on this matter. What exactly is dangerous about bringing a substance such as marijuana into public? How could this be even compared to the dangers of substances that are already regulated such as cigarettes and their very harmful second hand smoke?

My view on plant material (which by the way dont use the technical term for it, its against the T and C on this site and can result in both of us being banned for even talking about it) is if its done in the privacy of your own home, I could care less, provided people dont go for a joyride after the fact.

Ive worked my fair share of DWI and DUI cases, and the argument that it doesnt affcts a persons ability to safely operate a motor vehicle, based on my experience, is incorrect. Same with alcohol - provided its not out of control I have better things to do with my time on shift. The moment you get behind the wheel though, it presents a danger.

In addition to what to look for using DWI roadside olmypics, The DRE techniques are just as effective and can actually highlight by response, the type of drug in the persons system.

Here is a better question you should ask though.

Why is it possible for a person under the age of 21 to be charged with possession of alcohol by consumption, but a person who is tweaking on meth cant be charged with possession if its in their system?

If its against the law to be in possession of and drive under the influence of plant material, then why is it specifically covered under the implied consent agreement when you get your driveers license? Its not like there is a law that says if you have this much plant in your system your fine. The law only address alcohol, and does make the distinction between the levels and crime itself.

By the way, its question like this one that are very good questions.

i am not on here to lecture to people, or belittle them. I am just annoyed that people make these claims, but dont understand them at all. They are upset with the government, but cant give a valid reason why. They dont like the laws, but dont make efforts to understand them and challenege them.

the mindset I see is why bother to try to change the law, im just going to do it anyways because I dont like the law.

Since you have the freedom to make that choice, then why are people upset when others make the choice to intiate a traffic stop and take actions against it?

It a 2 way street is it not?

Its like the soveriegn citizen extremeists (the radicals that advocate death of law enforcement, not the groups that want a roll back to cmmon sense and law).

You have people who belive the government has over stepped its uahtority, and to support their view, they have gun downed law enforcement on traffic stops because they dont recognize their authority. How does a person justify the murder of another human based solely on the fact they dont agree with the governments position on something?

If you demand people respect your views, dont you think it should be returned?
To many people with extreme radical agendas hijack legitimate groups and their goals to operate under.

What they akl have in common though is the belif the system is broke, in addition to issues understanding the system and how it works.

If you took your car to a mechanic, and that mechanic says he is not certified and doesnt understand how to fix your car, would you take the keys back and walk away, or would you trust him to work on your car, all the while setting yourself up for failure?

Originally posted by ur86d
"http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us/29scotus.html"

And this article is all i can find at the moment, so i would definitely enjoy more reading on it..if you have it

In new jersey you ARE being stopped from bearing the arms...they dont allow open carry, and they will not issue a concealed carry permit unless you can prove you are in immediate danger, or are a LEO... thats an infringement...these restrictions dont apply to felons..they apply to honest law abiding citizens..say yes..the right to bear is being infringed...

edit on 16-10-2011 by ur86d because: To add more.

and that law is being challeneged, and Gov. christie involved himself with the fiasco of the guy who moved to new jersey who was arrested and sent to rpison for being in possesssion of those weapons.

The mindset that our system is perfect is an illusion. The goal of our laws and judicial system is such that it would rather see 10 criminals alk away than accidentally incarcerate 1 person unlawfully.

As with those cases, people are applying pressure to the New Jersey Government to make the changes. All it takes is one wrong action by a PA in mnew jersy to run afould of a supreme Court ruling to change their entire law.

People must be knowledgable about the law, both federal and state, if they are going to make a fight against it. This is my point with with this thread that until people educate themselves / familiarize themselves, the changes they want arent going to be successful.

Whats the saying -

A person who represents themselves in court has a fool for a client.

reply to post by ur86d


The DC case was in 2008 and laid the groundwork for the case out of chicago, which came in 2010.

they are the most recent court decision dealing with the 2nd amendment.

So That McDonald vrs Chicago ruling, didnt state that the 2nd amendment applies to state and local gun laws?...because if it did..i still stand by my argument..that New Jersey, by not allowing citizens to obtain the CCW they require is indeed infringing on the right to bear said arms... which is guarenteed by the 2nd... if they simply will not issue the CCW...they are infringing.

And no, i get the method to your madness here..it's a good thing. in my book...i do believe i have a point though, but i have not read the entire court decscion. I will admit.