#1 to your first point, I respectfully disagree. I share the same sentiment, and am of the opinion that the Declaration informs the very purpose of the Constitution. Just because there is a legal case that says the Declaration is invalidated, or superseded doesn't mean that I will necessarily agree that that was a Good Idea.Elheru Aran wrote:Your failure here is assuming that our rights come from our 'creator'. The people who wrote the Declaration believed in one, and believed that their rights derived from him. It was a sentiment of the time, and one that is not reflected in the Constitution apart from the occasional 'in the year of our lord', which is a contemporary form and no indication of belief or disbelief. And while the Declaration of Independence is a lovely document, it does not have legal standing as it has been superseded by the Constitution. It does form a basis for a number of legal decisions upon Constitutional issues, but those are irrelevant to our discussion as the rights we currently have are derived from the Bill of Rights, not the Declaration of Independence.cmdrjones wrote: If rights are a human construction then why are they endowed by our creator which is enshrined in the declaration? You contradict yourself.
What do you think a prison sentence is? Removal of the right to liberty, perhaps? Among other things. The internment of Japanese-Americans was certainly injust, probably illegal, and eventually recognized as such; it's a regrettable example of prejudicial action by the nation. If an individual breaks the law, however, they lose their rights.Even the courts don't have the right to remove your rights otherwise interning Japanese Americans without due process would have been fine.
Certainly open carry is legal... unless you start doing something stupid with it, such as threatening police officers in the execution of their duties. That's why armed protestors is a stupid idea, it's only going to result in an even bigger flap than the original protest was. As for inside buildings: If it's private property, the proprietors of that building have a right to regulate what happens inside their property. If it's a government office and it's banned in your state (it's banned in all federal buildings, IIRC), you're breaking the law, regardless of what you think your rights are. There are occasional exemptions for CCW permit holders and what not, but I don't care to take the time to list them. You are free to challenge the ban in court, of course... it's your liberty and property to waste. The fact of the matter is that the law is constructed to (theoretically) protect your rights. In breaking the law, you forfeit your rights and become a criminal. It's up to you.If I want to carry a Shotgun in public as part of my right to bear arms, then those laws restricting that are unjust. ANy agency that says: you can't defend yourself in our mall/Bank/Post Office" inherently takes the responsibility for defending me upon themselves. Forgive me if my 1st thought is "Fuck that!"
#2 as far as this paragraph goes, I totally agree, aside from one nitpick: once you start threatening somebody with a weapon it becomes brandishing, which is a crime. Mere bearing arms shouldn't be a crime IMHO. Private property rights I agree with. I don't think it's necessarily WISE to limit others rights on your property, but if people want to be dumb, they can do so.