Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

jody

(26,624 posts)
23. Do you use "deny" in the sense of limit for all law-abiding citizens or do mean abolish or ban for
Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:42 PM
Dec 2012

those same citizens?

If the latter, please cite a SCOTUS opinion that says it's constitutional for government to abolish any of the enumerated rights in our BOR.

Can you help with this, as far as terminology? OneGrassRoot Dec 2012 #1
Not really zipplewrath Dec 2012 #7
I never use the word banned. OneGrassRoot Dec 2012 #9
Easy fix, if we're not presented with some workable that reduces gun violance.... daleanime Dec 2012 #2
Rights preexist our Constitution, are not granted by it, and cannot be abolished by it. nt jody Dec 2012 #5
So you say zipplewrath Dec 2012 #10
SCOTUS said that in US v Cruikshank and again in DC v Heller. jody Dec 2012 #11
Doesn't discuss the ability to be withdrawn zipplewrath Dec 2012 #14
"Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." jody Dec 2012 #15
Doesn't make it "inalienable" zipplewrath Dec 2012 #16
SCOTUS in many cases recognize enumerated in the BOR and un-enumerated rights protected by the Ninth jody Dec 2012 #17
Power of the Constitution zipplewrath Dec 2012 #18
Abolishing a right for all law-abiding citizens is distinct from limiting an individual's exercise jody Dec 2012 #19
Careful zipplewrath Dec 2012 #20
Please read #11 a preexisting right is an inalienable right as PA & VT so clearly stated. Those jody Dec 2012 #21
Can be denied zipplewrath Dec 2012 #22
Do you use "deny" in the sense of limit for all law-abiding citizens or do mean abolish or ban for jody Dec 2012 #23
Dread Scot zipplewrath Dec 2012 #24
Understand but if words on paper do not create a right, how can words on paper destroy that jody Dec 2012 #25
Deny, not destroy zipplewrath Dec 2012 #27
I believe we're cycling. Are you saying "there are constitutional methods" for denying freedom of jody Dec 2012 #29
There are and there have been restrictions on freedom of speech put in place before Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #30
Your examples limit freedom of speech but do not abolish it for all citizens. Even under martial law jody Dec 2012 #31
Yes zipplewrath Dec 2012 #36
"restricting" a right is not "abolishing" a right. The latter is the subject of this discussion. jody Dec 2012 #39
And I can completely deny you the right zipplewrath Dec 2012 #40
Good Thing we have Antonin Scalia to distort the Constitution for Us! ellisonz Dec 2012 #34
The notion of "Inherent Rights" is nonsense on stilts. Odin2005 Dec 2012 #28
Love that NRA Talking Point (TM). ellisonz Dec 2012 #33
KICK patrice Dec 2012 #3
There is no discussion going on here on DU. closeupready Dec 2012 #4
Agree no discussion but lots of calls for ban, ban, ban, . . . . . . . . . nt jody Dec 2012 #6
Yep. Screaming? Check. Hyperbole? Check. closeupready Dec 2012 #12
Feel free zipplewrath Dec 2012 #8
Right. Thanks for the thread, opening post. closeupready Dec 2012 #13
Thank you. (nt) Recursion Dec 2012 #26
Simple: Everytime they throw out a talking point, hit them with a left hook. ellisonz Dec 2012 #32
It'd be good for progressives to similarly have nuanced knowledge HereSince1628 Dec 2012 #35
Good Idea zipplewrath Dec 2012 #37
I did. Days ago... please see: HereSince1628 Dec 2012 #38
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Semantics for progressive...»Reply #23