From: mjp@austin.ibm.com (Michael Phelps)
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Originator: mjp@bwa.kgn.ibm.com
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 92 12:51:10 GMT
Reply-To: mjp@vnet.ibm.com (Michael J. Phelps)
Organization: IBM Kingston NY


In article <1992Nov6.042020.24521@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov05.204219.19304@watson.ibm.com>, mjp@austin.ibm.com (Michael Phelps) writes:
|> > 
|> > In article <1992Nov5.184232.20993@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
|> > 
|> > According to the law, you aren't a full fledged citizen until you reach
|> > 18 yrs of age - you are a minor.  You also can't enter into a contract or get
|> > married without parental consent.
|> > 
|> 
|> Odd how that changes.  I couldn't vote until I was 21, the same year
|> they decided that you could at 18.  So I think age is false argument.
|> The legislators could decide that you were a minor until 30 or as
|> early as 12.
|> 
|> > 
|> > A felony conviction disenfranchises you; i.e, restriction of rights, sometimes
|> > even to the point of imprisonment [restriction of freedom of movement]
|> 
|> Same thing.  Legislators made it up.  Still it's a restriction of
|> the RKBA - who decided which restrictions were okay and which weren't?
|> > 
|> > 
|> > Marc, you do have the right to free speech, but try shouting "FIRE" in a 
|> > crowded theatre and see what happens.  You'll get arrested, but it will not
|> > violate your right to free speech (you did get to say it!).  Rights imply
|> > duties; if you choose to exercize a right, you also expect to be punished if
|> > you abuse that right.  RKBA is no different.  
|> 
|> Still my same argument - if the RKBA is inviolable and above regulation
|> why do you lose it as a minor, or if you broke the law or for acting
|> weird and not for other reasons?
|> 
|> marc colten
|> 

I'm curious; if someone is guilty of, say rape, what would you do?  By your logic,
they can't be punished, since any form of punishment involves an abrogation of
their rights.  

I think that this was addressed by Blackstone (English Common Law) and perhaps
the Romans, so its not a new question, nor an easy one line answer.

Personally, i believe that we should have the liberty, but if we excersize the
liberty in such a way as to infringe on anothers' rights without reason (like
self defense can justify killing) we should be punished.  Since the world isn't
black and white, a fair and impartial trial is perhaps the best way known to 
mortal man to try and decide if one has abused their rights.  Perfect?  Nope..
got a better idea?  I don't.  

The US was founded on the principle of personal freedom (liberty) with punishment
for abusing it (law).  The idea is that the law part isn't supposed to be able to
override the liberty part.  The reality is that the goverment has been inching 
the liberty vs law line towards law for many years.

If you are really interested in an in depth legal and philisophical discussion of
this, i'd reccommend a intro to law course, at a college near you.  This seems to
be one of the topics (i'm not being sarcastic either).

Bottom line: excersizing rights implies responsibility.  act irresponsibly, expect
 to get punished.  If you don't want responsibility, don't excersize rights.
-- 
Michael Phelps, (external) mjp@vnet.ibm.com ..
                (internal) mjp@bwa.kgn.ibm.com .. mjp at kgnvmy         
 (and last but not least a disclaimer)  These opinions are mine..