On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 02:24:46 GMT, Bob Crownfield 
wrote:

>The-Trainers wrote:
>> 
>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Bob Crownfield wrote:
>> 

>> 
>> Our gun-rights are unalienable and self-evident and are endowed on us
>> by our being alive and capable of exercising a CHOICE.
>> 
>> Rights CANNOT be "granted" ONLY priviliges can.
>> 
>> > It was written precisely for that purpose.
>> 
>> NO! It was written to REMIND future generations of the most vital rights
>> we MUST ALWAYS PROTECT.
>
>If there were no bill of rights, 
>then you would have no legal basis to claim them as rights. 

But you have a *moral* basis, and, more importantly, the Constitution
does not give government any legal basis for *restricting* the Rights.
With the moral basis, if the law does not follow the morality, the
people have a Right to kill the law makers and create a new society
that more adequately protects their Rights. It's called "the Right of
self-determination".

>If there were no second amendment, 
>then there would be no right to carry and bear arms.

Sure there would be - if there is no *civilization*, the *Right* still
exists. Remember, we are speaking of a philosophical concept here, and
specifically one that is a "given" as the foundation of our particular
form of civilization.

>The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution 
>to recognize and enumerate those rights 
>that all citizens are guaranteed under the Constitution.
>
>The Constitution was very well written, and is a living document,
>one that needs no interpretation for the times.

Most people use the term "Living document" to mean interpretation over
time. The Constitution already has a perfectly acceptable method for
accommodating changes as time goes on; no "re-interpretation" is
needed, of course. However, that process (the Amendment process) is
slow, unwieldy, and open to public debate, so it's no surprise that
those who seek to totally undermine and alter our society refuse to
use it.

>the one change I would suggest is that it specify that
>'All Persons are created equal in fact and before the law'.
>
>That the interpretation be simple:
>no more men, women, gays, heteros, bi's: Just ALL are equal.
>
>If it is a crime to do something wrong to any person, 
>then it is a crime to do that same wrong to any other person.

How conservative you are!! :-) That's *precisely* the philosophical
intent of our entire society.

>> They can't take away actual rights even then. Rights NEVER depend on a
>> piece of paper to exist. At BEST paper can remind the future generations
>> to protect a right, at WORST paper can help suppress a right.
>
>but a right has to be recognized and defined to have any legal basis.
>simply stating that a right exists ( you make up the example)
>is a moral concept, but has no legal basis. 

But laws are *supposed* to be codifications of morality. If a law does
not reflect the morality of a society, then the *law* is wrong, not
the society. Since our society already recognizes "Rights" as being
real and existing, we don't need to quibble about it - by definition
any law that oppresses Rights is an illegal law.

-Matt

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence --it is force! Like 
fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a 
moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
 
-- George Washington