Regulating Freedom Away

[jgoose71 0]

While clicking around the internet, just for shits and grins, I was reading about the debate on the Bill of Rights. I was really surprised to learn how much the nation really opposed the first ten amendments to the constitution.
http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/winter09/rights.cfm

Not because they didn’t want freedom, but because they wanted to protect it. The fear was that if they enshrined these inalienable rights into the constitution, that people would think that these rights were given to them by the government, and were not inherent in nature. The other fear was that these rights were the only inherent rights we have. All other rights (not enshrined in the constitution) are not necessarily rights.

I’m afraid that the men of 200 years ago are smarter than we are today. Last year Obama passed 81,611 pages of new rules saying what we can and can’t do.
http://thehill.com/regulation/administration/264456-2015-was-record-year-for-federal-regulation-group-says

To quote all of the famous liberals out there “Name 3 right that you don’t have today that you used to have before Obama took Office?”

I say this because they will define our rights as “those things defined in the 1st 10 amendments to the constitution” in direct contrast to what the founding fathers thought.

The other thing that seems to be overlooked is the fine lines between “regulations” and “infringements” of said rights. Unfortunately, some rights are held to different standards than others. And even this will vary widely depending on who you talk to about what rights, and even those bars are changing with the different generations. Newer generations are incapable, it seems, to empathize or care about how their decisions will affect others of different back grounds.

So in the end, we are the frog in a pot of water being slowly boiled so we don’t notice.

From Federalist Paper No. 26:

Quote

Schemes to subvert the liberties of a great community REQUIRE TIME to mature them for execution. An army, so large as seriously to menace those liberties, could only be formed by progressive augmentations; which would suppose, not merely a temporary combination between the legislature and executive, but a continued conspiracy for a series of time. Is it probable that such a combination would exist at all? Is it probable that it would be persevered in, and transmitted along through all the successive variations in a representative body, which biennial elections would naturally produce in both houses? Is it presumable, that every man, the instant he took his seat in the national Senate or House of Representatives, would commence a traitor to his constituents and to his country? Can it be supposed that there would not be found one man, discerning enough to detect so atrocious a conspiracy, or bold or honest enough to apprise his constituents of their danger? If such presumptions can fairly be made, there ought at once to be an end of all delegated authority. The people should resolve to recall all the powers they have heretofore parted with out of their own hands, and to divide themselves into as many States as there are counties, in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed26.asp

Or we could just elect Donald Trump for president…..

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[DanG 1]

Quote

Not because they didn’t want freedom, but because they wanted to protect it. The fear was that if they enshrined these inalienable rights into the constitution, that people would think that these rights were given to them by the government, and were not inherent in nature. The other fear was that these rights were the only inherent rights we have. All other rights (not enshrined in the constitution) are not necessarily rights.

I've tried to explain this to people here before and gotten violent opposition.

On the other hand, even rights enumerated in the Constitution are not without limitations. As the saying goes, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

So what rights do you think evil Obama has taken away from you? The list must be long.

- Dan G

[cvfd1399 0]

I am sure there are some articulable rights that can be found. What is greater is the setting of a foundation that leads to later acceptance of the actual removal of rights through propaganda, numbing of the minds by repeated attempts which end up going unnoticed or passed off as another false alarm then snuck in a 5000 page unrelated bill, or end around attempts.


Example. Cant pass an outright gun type ban, well attack the ammo for that weapon, can't pass that, well attack it some other way, how about a way that through the courts might find it violates due process like California's bill, and obamas proposal.

[quade 4]

jgoose71

The fear was that if they enshrined these inalienable rights into the constitution, that people would think that these rights were given to them by the government, and were not inherent in nature. The other fear was that these rights were the only inherent rights we have. All other rights (not enshrined in the constitution) are not necessarily rights.

The moment you have a collection of people (aka a society), you absolutely have to have things spelled out. If not, then whoever is in power at the moment can simply change whatever they want.

From "Bananas" (but not too far off);

Quote

Esposito: From this day on, the official language of San Marcos will be Swedish. Silence! In addition to that, all citizens will be required to change their underwear every half-hour. Underwear will be worn on the outside so we can check. Furthermore, all children under 16 years old are now... 16 years old!

Without a Constitution, you may think you have "inalienable rights," but if the guy in charge says you don't, then you don't. I may say it's my right to graze my flock on public property, but if the government says otherwise, then I don't. Plain and simple.

Write it down and it's no longer subject to capricious whims of temporal entities.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[DanG 1]

If you're sure some articulable rights have been removed, how about you articulate some?

Would you say that changes to laws have been worse for your rights under Obama than previous presidents?

- Dan G

[billvon 2,991]

"Last year Obama passed 81,611 pages of new rules saying what we can and can’t do. "

Question - what are the rights he took away?

"I am sure there are some articulable rights that can be found."

So 81,611 pages of "removals of rights" but you can't pinpoint a single one.

>Cant pass an outright gun type ban, well attack the ammo for that weapon,
>can't pass that, well attack it some other way . . . .

OK, so that's a list of two rights that you still have.

>how about a way that through the courts might find it violates due process like
>California's bill, and obamas proposal.

Obama's proposal is enforce the laws we have, educate people more and make sure background checks are performed. Isn't that what gun advocates have been saying forever?

Or are you saying that gun advocates are the ones removing our rights?

[jgoose71 0]

DanG

If you're sure some articulable rights have been removed, how about you articulate some?

Would you say that changes to laws have been worse for your rights under Obama than previous presidents?

Ah yes, the "Name 3 rights" argument mentioned above that the liberals love.....

As I said, every new rule or regulation tells people what they can and can't do. You can't buy a soda more than 16 oz (NY). You can't by a gun with certain features (NY and CT). If you split traffic you have to do it a certain way (effective ban in CA). New rules and regulations for what is now considered a pond or "wet land" (EPA land grab).

As said, do any of these actually effect your rights as enshrined in the constitution? No. Do I actually think all the new pages of regulation are necessary? No. Do I think that I am less free with all the new rules? Yes.

If I only have enough money to buy one (1) cigarette, I would like to think that I could do it without being beaten up by a bunch of Jack Booted Thugs (Eric Garner, I can't breathe!!!)

At this point with all the rules and regulations I'm pretty sure everyone is a felon that hasn't been caught. We still have the 4th amendment for now. (However, if you don't consent to a search there are things the police can do that are considered non intrusive by the courts, like hold you while a dog sniffs your vehicle....)

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[billvon 2,991]

>You can't buy a soda more than 16 oz (NY).

Incorrect; you can. (Measure was declared unenforceable.)

But to be clear, you are responding to a post questioning what rights Obama has removed, per your original claim. Do you claim that Obama was behind the (attempted) large cup soft drink ban?

> You can't by a gun with certain features (NY and CT).

Yes. Do you claim that Obama was behind those restrictions?

>If I only have enough money to buy one (1) cigarette, I would like to think that
>I could do it without being beaten up by a bunch of Jack Booted Thugs

Have you ever been beaten up by said thugs, and do you believe Obama was behind the attack?

> If you split traffic you have to do it a certain way (effective ban in CA).

What specifically is banned? And do you claim Obama did this?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

At this point with all the rules and regulations I'm pretty sure everyone is a felon that hasn't been caught.

There is so much wrong with this sentence.

[DanG 1]

Bill, I'm not sure why I have have to keep explaining this, but here it goes again:

If it was bad, it was Obama's fault.

If it was good, it only happened because Obama lacks the leadership ability to prevent it.

- Dan G

[jakee 1,490]

Quote

As I said, every new rule or regulation tells people what they can and can't do. You can't buy a soda more than 16 oz (NY). You can't by a gun with certain features (NY and CT). If you split traffic you have to do it a certain way (effective ban in CA).

And Obama signed all those new State laws into effect? Fuck that guy!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[quade 4]

jgoose71

If you split traffic you have to do it a certain way (effective ban in CA).

You do realize that driving is a privilege and not a right; yes?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[normiss 801]

I split traffic all the time, no driving involved at all.

[jakee 1,490]

quade

***If you split traffic you have to do it a certain way (effective ban in CA).

You do realize that driving is a privilege and not a right; yes?

Actually that speaks to the part of his OP that was philosophically correct.

Driving is a right. Anyone that says otherwise is a moron.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jgoose71 0]

billvon

> If you split traffic you have to do it a certain way (effective ban in CA).

What specifically is banned? And do you claim Obama did this?

There is a difference between a ban and and "effective ban." While not a lot has been banned, you can put enough regulations on something to make it impossible to do or not worth doing.

That is why I mentioned the above proposed lane sharing laws in California. If you have ever ridden a motorcycle and shared lanes, and then read how the laws is proposed to be written, you know that the intent is to actually make it illegal. You can't reasonably lane share IAW the given guide lines.

Other posts are to the "Nanny State." Are they banning shit? No, but they were passing regulations that sure annoy the hell out of a lot of people.

Did Obama do it? Not all of it. There are plenty of "big government" politicians that want to be a part of every aspect of your life.

Do I know all the new rules that the EPA, IRS, BLM, BATFE, DOE, and all the other regulatory agencies under Obama passed? No, but I'm sure I'll figure it out the next time I'm in town. You can't tell me they didn't pass any. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of people bitching about "death by a thousand cuts" under their rule.

Every time I talk to my dad I get to hear about how another Department of the Interior regulation just put another company out of business.....

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[normiss 801]

I think your tin foil might be too tight.

[jgoose71 0]

quade

***If you split traffic you have to do it a certain way (effective ban in CA).

You do realize that driving is a privilege and not a right; yes?

Which goes back to my original point. I guess the only things that are rights are in the bill of rights? Other than that the government can fuck you over anyway they want?

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[JerryBaumchen 1,363]

Hi 71,

Quote

New rules and regulations for what is now considered a pond or "wet land" (EPA land grab).

Whenever someone complains about the actions of the EPA, I always ask them if they have read the book or seen the movie 'A Civil Action.' They usually have not heard of either, which tells me that they are really not very much informed.

None of us is perfect; and neither is any agency of the federal gov't. But, this nation would be a garbage dump without the actions of the EPA.

Jerry Baumchen

[jgoose71 0]

normiss

I think your tin foil might be too tight.

Fast forward to the 3 minute mark. That's me, the guy wanting a choice....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeBt8_MMpU8

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[jgoose71 0]

JerryBaumchen

Hi 71,

Quote

New rules and regulations for what is now considered a pond or "wet land" (EPA land grab).

Whenever someone complains about the actions of the EPA, I always ask them if they have read the book or seen the movie 'A Civil Action.' They usually have not heard of either, which tells me that they are really not very much informed.

None of us is perfect; and neither is any agency of the federal gov't. But, this nation would be a garbage dump without the actions of the EPA.

Jerry Baumchen

I'm not saying they are 100% evil. Maybe 80%?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2015/08/03/final-waters-of-the-u-s-rule-is-more-overreach-by-the-epa/

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[quade 4]

jakee

******If you split traffic you have to do it a certain way (effective ban in CA).

You do realize that driving is a privilege and not a right; yes?

Actually that speaks to the part of his OP that was philosophically correct.

Driving is a right. Anyone that says otherwise is a moron.

Well, I guess I can't even begin to argue with that sort of legal knowledge.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jakee 1,490]

quade

*********If you split traffic you have to do it a certain way (effective ban in CA).

You do realize that driving is a privilege and not a right; yes?

Actually that speaks to the part of his OP that was philosophically correct.

Driving is a right. Anyone that says otherwise is a moron.

Well, I guess I can't even begin to argue with that sort of legal knowledge.

No, you can't. Because it's true, and it's blindingly obvious that it's true.

If the 9th doesn't cover freedom of movement then it doesn't cover anything. Find a better way of travelling than cars and then you can ban driving. Until then, fugeddaboutit.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[quade 4]

jakee

Quote

***Driving is a right. Anyone that says otherwise is a moron.

Well, I guess I can't even begin to argue with that sort of legal knowledge.

No, you can't. Because it's true, and it's blindingly obvious that it's true.

If the 9th doesn't cover freedom of movement then it doesn't cover anything. Find a better way of travelling than cars and then you can ban driving. Until then, fugeddaboutit.

So, I can hop in a car unlicensed and just drive? Really? Drunk too and at any speed I guess since it's a right.

Additionally, I think jets are a pretty cool way to move. Can I just hop in the left seat of any jet I happen to have the money to buy and fly it in any airspace I want completely unrestricted?

Cool!

I'll be certain to tell the Feds you said it was okay when they send the F-16s after me.

But, but, it's my right!

Riiiight.

You sir . . . have no idea what you're talking about.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[The111 1]

I think both of these statements can be true:

1) Driving is a right (doing what you please with your body and property).
2) Driving on any property you do not own is a privilege. A big grass field in a public park may be public property, and you may be free to walk/picnic on it whenever you like. But you're not free to drive a car on it, and I'd agree you don't have that right. :-)

Anybody who doesn't like the highway system built by his governemnt should feel free to construct his own highway system on his own property. And Obama won't even be able to tell him how to use his motorcycle there either!

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[billvon 2,991]

>That is why I mentioned the above proposed lane sharing laws in California. If you
>have ever ridden a motorcycle and shared lanes, and then read how the laws is
>proposed to be written, you know that the intent is to actually make it illegal. You
>can't reasonably lane share IAW the given guide lines.

Of course you can. The new law (if passed) restricts lane splitting to 50mph and the motorcyclist can be doing no more than 15mph above the speed of traffic. That is in no way an "effective ban" any more than cloud-clearance rules are an "effective ban" on skydiving.

And even if the law is passed, California will STILL be the only state that allows it.

>Did Obama do it? Not all of it.

Which part of the new (proposed) lane-splitting regulations was Obama responsible for?