If there is no gun show loophole… then this shouldn’t be a problem (1 Viewer)

[Rich2018]

To recognizeca right..it means it already exists.

Sorry rich..but To exist in " black and white"
It must exist in the minds of those tgat propose the law etc.
The right exists independent of the law.

Did nazi Germany violate the rights of jews ?
If so. How?

If it's legally recognized, it does mean it exists in law
If legislators recognize a need for a right, they pass legislation to make it so. The law to grant that right doesn't just magically appear on the statute books.

You might be confused with two meanings for the same word. A common mistake to be sure

No right exists independent of the law

Did the USA violate the rights of Japanese-Americans, yes or no ?

 

[RF667799]

If it's legally recognized, it does mean it exists in law
If legislators recognize a need for a right, they pass legislation to make it so. The law to grant that right doesn't just magically appear on the statute books.

You switch from "recognize" to "grant".

You might be confused with two meanings for the same word. A common mistake to be sure

You're using two different words and pretending they're the same. A common deceit, to be sure.

No right exists independent of the law

Virtually nobody really believes that.

Did the USA violate the rights of Japanese-Americans, yes or no ?

Of course.

 

[jaeger19]

If it's legally recognized, it does mean it exists in law
If legislators recognize a need for a right, they pass legislation to make it so. The law to grant that right doesn't just magically appear on the statute books.

You might be confused with two meanings for the same word. A common mistake to be sure

No right exists independent of the law

Did the USA violate the rights of Japanese-Americans, yes or no ?

If they recognize a right in their minds. Then it exists independent of any law or statute.

The only one confused here is you skippy.

Rights obviously exist independently of the law.

Yes..the USA most assuredly violated the rights of Japanese Americans with internment camps.
Despite it being "legal.".
And later the USA paid reparations to those that were interred.

Japanese American Incarceration | The National WWII Museum | New Orleans

At the time of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, about 120,000 persons of Japanese ancestry lived on the US mainland, mostly along the Pacific Coast. About two thirds were full citizens, born and raised in the United States. Following the Pearl Harbor attack, however, a wave of...

www.nationalww2museum.org

 

[eohrnberger]

What is the change that represents being in the ‘business’ of selling firearms?

Yet another Biden administration 'work-around' founded in the changing the meaning of words to do so.
I recall the left's chorus 'words have meaning' and 'words matter'.
Apparently not, when it conflicts with the left's political agenda, not that the left is ever consistent, with all subjugated to their political agenda.
People who subjugate everything, morals, laws, principals, everything on the alter of political agenda, are the same people who's very words from their mouths can't be trusted either.

It's an endless case of instances where 'Democrat speak with forked tongue'.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Yet another Biden administration 'work-around' founded in the changing the meaning of words to do so.
I recall the left's chorus 'words have meaning' and 'words matter'.
Apparently not, when it conflicts with the left's political agenda, not that the left is ever consistent, with all subjugated to their political agenda.
People who subjugate everything, morals, laws, principals, everything on the alter of political agenda, are the same people who's very words from their mouths can't be trusted either.

It's an endless case of instances where 'Democrat speak with forked tongue'.

The “Bi-Partisan” Safer Community Act removed the word “livelihood” from the definition of “being in the business”.

So, now, if I sell a gun for $1 more than I paid for it (or it could just be inflation), the ATF can say that I am “in business” to make a profit and require an FFL.

Of course, this is the same ATF that is shutting down home FFLs. So, damned if you do and damned if you don’t. And then the ATF will raid you and shoot you in the head.

You can thank John Cornyn for that “bi-partisan” piece of crap. Remember, bi-partisan really means stupid (R) and evil (D).

 

[eohrnberger]

The “Bi-Partisan” Safer Community Act removed the word “livelihood” from the definition of “being in the business”.

So, now, if I sell a gun for $1 more than I paid for it (or it could just be inflation), the ATF can say that I am “in business” to make a profit and require an FFL.

Of course, this is the same ATF that is shutting down home FFLs. So, damned if you do and damned if you don’t. And then the ATF will raid you and shoot you in the head.

You can thank John Cornyn for that “bi-partisan” piece of crap. Remember, bi-partisan really means stupid (R) and evil (D).

Yeah, bi-partisan pieces of crap.

It's hard to trust anyone when they keep changing the meaning of words, the left's favorite and dishonest tactic.

The R's that believe Democrats are negotiating in good faith need to adopt a 'trust but verify' stances with Democrats and everything that comes out of their mouths.

 

[Rich2018]

If they recognize a right in their minds. Then it exists independent of any law or statute.

To paraphrase Sam Goldwyn: a perceived "right" isn't worth the paper it's written on, when it comes to a criminal trial.

The only one confused here is you skippy.

Rights obviously exist independently of the law.

Nope, you're the one who thinks that a perceived or "natural" right is any defense in a court room that doesn't recognize it.

...the USA most assuredly violated the rights of Japanese Americans with internment camps.
Despite it being "legal.".

Who says it was "legal" ?
Just because the US government did it (and got away with it), doesn't make it "legal"

With regard to the Jews, you are talking about HUMAN RIGHTS, which is not to confused by legal rights, like the right to remain silent, right to a trial by jury etc.
In addition the Nazis engaged in illegal wars and German presence, in a host of countries they occupied, was illegal along with any/all actions they took there.

 

[jaeger19]

To paraphrase Sam Goldwyn: a perceived "right" isn't worth the paper it's written on, when it comes to a criminal trial.



Nope, you're the one who thinks that a perceived or "natural" right is any defense in a court room that doesn't recognize it.



Who says it was "legal" ?
Just because the US government did it (and got away with it), doesn't make it "legal"

With regard to the Jews, you are talking about HUMAN RIGHTS, which is not to confused by legal rights, like the right to remain silent, right to a trial by jury etc.
In addition the Nazis engaged in illegal wars and German presence, in a host of countries they occupied, was illegal along with any/all actions they took there.

1. Rights can be violated..yes.
2. Umm no. You are going off tge rails there rich.
3. Well rich..it was legal in the sense that it was done through the established process of executive orders. And the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality.

4. No..I am not confusing anything.
Human rights..natural rights are the basis for legal rights like trial by jury or jury by peers etc.
It's the extension of the right to self determination.
And not have that right violated by an arbitrary and capricious government who decides to imprison or execute individuals .
5. Not according to german law were they illegal.

 

[Rich2018]

You are going off tge rails there

Explain.

...it was legal in the sense that it was done through the established process of executive orders. And the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality.

Many things are done by the government, only to be overruled by the courts
Just because the government does something, doesn't make it "legal", anymore than if YOU do something, it doesn't make it "legal"

Governments can break the law too you know.

I am not confusing anything.

Yes you are
Specifically "rights" and "human rights"
Now you're confused over the criteria for something being "legal".

Human rights..natural rights are the basis for legal rights like trial by jury or jury by peers etc.

No, they just share the same word
You can't exercise a "human right".

It's the extension of the right to self determination.

This is not a right.

Not according to german law were they illegal.

Are you saying the Holocaust was legal under German law at the time ?

 

[jaeger19]

Explain.



Many things are done by the government, only to be overruled by the courts
Just because the government does something, doesn't make it "legal", anymore than if YOU do something, it doesn't make it "legal"

Governments can break the law too you know.



Yes you are
Specifically "rights" and "human rights"
Now you're confused over the criteria for something being "legal".



No, they just share the same word
You can't exercise a "human right".



This is not a right.



Are you saying the Holocaust was legal under German law at the time ?

1. Your quote "Nope, you're the one who thinks that a perceived or "natural" right is any defense in a court room that doesn't recognize it.".
Yeah..I can't really understand what you are claiming but..I know I have never said anything remotely similar to that.

2. Yep. But the Japanese internment has never been overturned by the courts...
But again..if it's within their legal authority..its within their legal authority.

Not sure what you are arguing here rich...

Now you seem to be arguing that governments can violate a person's rights..
Which means they have to have them independent of the government.

3. Sure you can exercise a human right.
If you aren't using your human rights..how can they be violated.

4. The right to self determination is certainly a right.
A person can't just be killed willy nilly.
That violates their right of self determination.

5. Yes. You may reference the Nuremberg race laws.

Nuremberg Laws

Learn more about the Reich Citizenship Law and the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor, collectively known as the Nuremberg Race Laws.

encyclopedia.ushmm.org

 

[Rich2018]

1. Your quote "Nope, you're the one who thinks that a perceived or "natural" right is any defense in a court room that doesn't recognize it.".
Yeah..I can't really understand what you are claiming but..I know I have never said anything remotely similar to that.

So you now admit that the only rights that you can use as a legal defense, are those granted by law ?

....the Japanese internment has never been overturned by the courts...

Because the war ended and the Japanese-Americans were released
Also FDR had previously forced the Supreme Court into submission, with a threat to "pack" the court

But if you want an example where the Supreme Court DID overturn illegal government imprisonment:

Mohamedou Ould Slahi - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But again..if it's within their legal authority..its within their legal authority.

You confuse "authority" and "power"
Just because something is within the government's power, doesn't mean it's within its authority

Politics 101.

Now you seem to be arguing that governments can violate a person's rights..
Which means they have to have them independent of the government.

No
In the UK we talk about different "governments"
Currently Britain has a Conservative government (With a capital "C"), because all 50 odd members of the government (the full cabinet) are members of the Conservative party
There is to be a general election shortly and the opinion polls are predicting a win for the Labour party
If so, the Labour party will fill all the government positions and we will say there's been a "change of GOVERNMENT"

However in the USA the government is regarded as more or less permanent, and if one party takes control of the presidency/Congress, we say there's been a "change of ADMINISTRATION"

So when you talk about the US government violating people rights, you talk about the violation of rights, granted by an earlier ADMINISTRATION of the government.

...you can exercise a human right.
If you aren't using your human rights..how can they be violated

Go on then, give me an example of you exercising your HUMAN RIGHTS.

A person can't just be killed willy nilly

Not legally no, but the government is required to follow "due process", is NOT a right of self determination

An example is Taiwan. China claims the island, but the people there don't want to be part of China, but rather form their own state. That is an example of/desire for "self determination".

You may reference the Nuremberg race laws

Which did NOT grant the authority of the German government the right to imprison and/or exterminate Jews
Much less did they authorize the imprisonment/extermination of Jews outside of Germany - like Jews in Poland, France, USSR etc

Also, the Holocaust is estimated to have involved the deaths of about 6 million Jews, but the total number of people killed in the Holocaust is estimated to have been around 11 million people
People such as communists and gypsies were also murdered in their millions - pretty sure the Nuremburg laws didn't apply to them

I would recommend you watch an excellent, fact based HBO television movie about it:

Conspiracy (2001 film) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[jaeger19]

So you now admit that the only rights that you can use as a legal defense, are those granted by law ?



Because the war ended and the Japanese-Americans were released
Also FDR had previously forced the Supreme Court into submission, with a threat to "pack" the court

But if you want an example where the Supreme Court DID overturn illegal government imprisonment:

Mohamedou Ould Slahi - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You confuse "authority" and "power"
Just because something is within the government's power, doesn't mean it's within its authority

Politics 101.



No
In the UK we talk about different "governments"
Currently Britain has a Conservative government (With a capital "C"), because all 50 odd members of the government (the full cabinet) are members of the Conservative party
There is to be a general election shortly and the opinion polls are predicting a win for the Labour party
If so, the Labour party will fill all the government positions and we will say there's been a "change of GOVERNMENT"

However in the USA the government is regarded as more or less permanent, and if one party takes control of the presidency/Congress, we say there's been a "change of ADMINISTRATION"

So when you talk about the US government violating people rights, you talk about the violation of rights, granted by an earlier ADMINISTRATION of the government.



Go on then, give me an example of you exercising your HUMAN RIGHTS.



Not legally no, but the government is required to follow "due process", is NOT a right of self determination

An example is Taiwan. China claims the island, but the people there don't want to be part of China, but rather form their own state. That is an example of/desire for "self determination".



Which did NOT grant the authority of the German government the right to imprison and/or exterminate Jews
Much less did they authorize the imprisonment/extermination of Jews outside of Germany - like Jews in Poland, France, USSR etc

Also, the Holocaust is estimated to have involved the deaths of about 6 million Jews, but the total number of people killed in the Holocaust is estimated to have been around 11 million people
People such as communists and gypsies were also murdered in their millions - pretty sure the Nuremburg laws didn't apply to them

I would recommend you watch an excellent, fact based HBO television movie about it:

Conspiracy (2001 film) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

1. Well no. I mean the right to abortion was never written into law.. in fact it was restricted .. But in Roe v Wade..Roe's lawyers successful argued that she had a right to an abortion through an extension of the right to privacy. Despite abortion rights not being granted by law.

2. So? The bottom line is that the internment has never been found illegal nor unconstitutional...yet.. we all acknowledge that it violated the Japanese American rights. Which proves rights exist independent of government.

3. Not confusing anything.
Your just flinging bs distractions because you cannot dispute the points I've made.

4. Whatever. Who cares ..it has nothing to do with this debate.

5. Um no.
6. Breathing..living..walking down my street. Hunting. Driving my car..
Making love to my wife.. the list of human rights I exercise everyday is endless.

7. Sure it is. Because we have that right of self determination is why governments are expected to have due process.

8. Sure.
9. According to the German government it did.
You need to work on this debate thing.
On one hand you are arguing that government is who decides whether they have authority over you..
And now you are arguing that despite the governments laws and actions...they don't have authority.
10.
Sweet baby jesus rich. Stop acting like you have any knowledge. You didn't know about the nuremburg laws before I cited them.
You asked about jews.. I answered with citations.
But the nuremburg laws were two main laws.
The Reich Citizenship Law
And
The Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor.
Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honor pertained to jews..but it also included the Roma and Scinti peoples.
I.e. " gypsies".

"In 1933, some Sinti and Roma were forcibly sterilized under the Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring, and in 1935 they were included in the Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honor".

Targeting the Sinti and Roma

Deepen your understanding of the Nazis’ persecution of Sinti and Roma people during World War II.

www.facinghistory.org

I recommend you start posting less and reading more.