Break it down like this: All laws, constitutional or otherwise created by governments either proscribe or prohibits some social behavior. A prohibition is also a proscription to all others to have the legal right NOT to do something. In essence, all laws are rights such as those which we proscribe in a constitution. The only difference is the ease for which those laws can be changed, if at all. So this implies that we are not "supposed to" deny any law. This includes the government considering they are part of the same democratic population. So governments, too, are not supposed to deny any law. What distinguishes your absolute "right" then from merely obeying the law at any given time?
It's only your active obedience that suggests that you are "right". And any behavior to the contrary is "wrong". If these rights and wrongs are determined by people alone, then these claims are just arbitrary conventions and do not belong to some external universal force of nature, like the laws of matter and energy. So there is nothing "natural" about them.
Whether a majority of people think the concept of natural rights are right or not is irrelevant. That is why we have the government in existence to protect them (or it's supposed to). I would also disagree that a prohibition is a proscription to have the right not to do something. Making speeding illegal is not thus making it a right not to speed.
Take a shield and a spear....are you honestly going to tell me that the spear is the defensive tool and the shield is some superfluous useless piece of decoration? Did armies of the past believe that the spears serve to defend the armies from the unruly civilization?
Not sure I follow here. Both spear and shield were used as both offensive and defensive weapons. You can hit someone with a shield.
Then I guess then the "timeless" amendments that are more than a few hundred years old are really outdated then, wouldn't you agree?
Not at all. Right to free speech, right to arms, right against unreasonable search and seizure, etc...are just as applicable now as they were then.
And how would you propose to solve this? The voting population only has to require being over 18 years of age. There's no educational prerequisite. Do you propose discounting those ill informed people the vote? Do you propose just ignoring those other people's interpretations when it comes to deciding to create a law? Or do you think that it might be wiser to negotiate an improved law that everyone can understand equally?
You do not ignore other people's "interpretations," you point out to them how they are wrong.
And this arbitrary nature of people to be correct at assessing their authority at knowing when a government is bad for everyone else is a wise reason to assure that they have the capability to overthrow them? ...thus requiring that they need to have the right to be able to stockpile the weapons to do so?
No. You protect the right of the people to keep arms in the event that the government becomes outright tyrannical (for example, if a Lenin takes over, one isn't really going to have to debate the issue at that point). But also, the people being armed is to serve as a check on groups that would seek to overthrow the government as well (insurrections).
Communism = the state in which all property and means of production are owned and operated by everyone in the community.
Capitalism = the state by which property and means of production can or may be owned by individuals. Such ownership is one's capital.
Socialism = the economic means to distribute social equality to its members of some defined class. [non-members do not necessarily qualify] Members of one social group, for example, like the sick, qualify for some equal standard of treatment.
Nationalism = the belief that a particular group of people, like a race or population, is special and should be treated with that respect. It is the pride in one's heritage, culture or historical roots of a select people who believe they must raise this consciousness in awareness of all to preserve a common collective mindset.
Democracy = any system that uses some form of voting procedure to elect governments or common laws to represent them. (Is interpreted ambiguously because no system beyond direct control and access to creating laws or immediate rule actually involves all the people all the time. Only Athens came close to it as a political reality.)
Dictatorship = any system by which rules or laws are 'dictated' by an authorized group or individual without the direct consent of the people at large. (This is an ambiguous term because when one country determines some official leader as 'dictating', it implies that it is without consent when in fact the people may actually grant that consent in some form or another.)
I looked up the Wikipedia on Hussein and I stand corrected that he was likely national socialist. However, this definition doesn't distinguish America without these qualifications. The national pride is the status that Americans grant their superiority over others by their promotion of its heritage, its ideals, and its imposition to preserve it throughout the world. The social programs are everywhere though they place more emphasis on granting privilege to non-governmental organizations to do these services. I would define the U.S. as National Social Capitalists. The Nazis, by comparison, had a unique National identity that limited them to German aboriginals, a race, whereas the States do not (at least for most people). But Social aspects of the Nazis was mainly in respect to a German middle-class distribution of equality and unfortunately, the select distribution of equal treatment in very derogatory ways to other groups (the Jews, the mentally ill, etc.) They were capitalistic though. They only socialized major means of production but enabled Germans to own private property and other means of production.
Well socialism I would say is when the state runs the economy as opposed to the free-market. Some define socialism as being when the state owns the means of production, but the thing is, if the state does not own outright the means of production, but directs the companies in terms of how and what to produce, then you get the same result. This is what the Nazi economy did. They outright nationalized certain industries, but other "private-sector" businesses had to abide by the central planning laid out (or else face outright nationalization). Prices, wages, dividends, production quotas, etc...all were tightly controlled.
I would disagree that the U.S. is nationalist. Americans tend to be proud and patriotic, but not nationalist.
Okay, presuming fairness, is not your argument to allow the general public to be armed no different? The American nuclear arms arsenal represents the right of America to own a very big gun. Can you not extend the right to bear arms to your own citizens for a real fear of a possible takeover in such a delicate system like Liberal Democracy to other nations? If not, you presume that the totality of American citizens are far morally superior than other people in other nations.
A few things:
1) Nuclear weapons are not arms. Arms are the basic tools of war that you use one-on-one (swords, knives, axes, firearms, etc...). Not things like bombs.
2) I have no problem with other free countries have nuclear weapons to protect themselves. I do have a problem with violent regimes possessing nuclear weapon however.
No?... just the creation of Homeland security and Guantanamo Bay and the ability to detain anyone without due process in the name of National Security!
They don't have the ability to detain anyone without due process. And how is Homeland Security the sign of a tyrant? Guantanomo Bay was created because there just isn't any other place to put the terrorists that were being held. Remember how President Obama, upon becoming President, said that Guantanomo Bay would be closed within a year? And then they found out the hard way why it had been opened in the first place.
How can you impeach a President when he disabled the court's, let alone the public at large, to be able to discover fair evidence? By creating that law to ban all Presidential communications from publicity extended to police investigations. What he did was to make it actually illegal to impeach a President until fifty years later, a time he is likely to be dead! And how do you measure this 'least scandal-wracked' qualification?
Not sure which law you are referring to (could you provide a link?). Also, the president does not create laws, they only enforce them. To create laws requires Congress. As for the least scandal-wracked, well Bush didn't have any equivalent to Iran-Contra like Reagan, nor was he getting blow jobs like Bill Clinton, nor were there any IRS, Justice Department, NSA, Benghazi, etc...scandals like with Obama.
The ideals of the Republican Party represented by Bush means that he believes in the smallest government possible (Dictatorship is the best) whereby favoring certain capitalist organizations to take over those powers (Aristocratic Rule without responsibility or representation its citizens) and installment of the ability to use tax dollars to foster particular religious affiliations (abandonment of the First Amendment). On ideology alone, his aim is clearly National Socialistic.
Where did Bush favor dictatorship or "certain capitalist organizations" to take over? And why was Bush such an ally to Israel then? Truly tyrannical regimes make friends with other tyrannical regimes.
Is this just another blind belief in something else that's 'supposed' to be?
As I pointed out, top members of Congress don't get their intelligence from the White House. So it wasn't like all Congress had to rely on was the Bush administration itself on the issue.