Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: where does the OWS stand on the other constitutional rights?

Posted 2 years ago on Dec. 5, 2011, 2:40 p.m. EST by vothmr (82) from Harrisonburg, VA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

here i am speaking mainly about the second amendment and the right to bear arm but commentary on the other amendments would be perfectly welcome. i mention this because it seems like the OWS is having a grand old time trampling over the rights of the people in the city who want to go to work and run their buisnesses

39 Comments

39 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by kickthemout (83) 2 years ago

The way the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the Second Amendment was wrong. If you read carefully the wording of Amendment 2 of the U.S. Constitution there is nothing there which would empower either the States or Congress to regulate this amendment through legislation. Period.

There is nothing that says: Congress or Congress and the States or the States shall have the power to regulate this amendment by appropriate legislation. This amendment gives the exclusive right to the people of each individual State to possess firearm and constitute a People's Militia. However, as we live in a dictatorship, the constitution is misinterpreted by our oppressors in the U. Congress and that oppression is validated by the U.S. "Criminal" Supreme Court and all the Federal Courts.

I would like to add that the so-called Interstate Commerce Clause which Congress calls upon often to oppress us never was meant to criminalize interstate commerce or any interstate activity. It was meant only to regulate/facilitate commerce between States and that's all. Now Congress uses that Clause to make anything remotely connected to commerce, and is just about everything, a Federal Crime punishable harshly with all the permanent loss of civil rights attached to the convictions. This is tyranny. That's why we have to kick all of those 535 skunks in Congress out of office if we want to establish a just society. More information here: http://www.usapoliticaltyranny.info

[-] 2 points by WarmItUp (301) 2 years ago

The second amendment was created to give The People the power to literally fight the government when they got too big and powerful and didn't listen to democracy, (hence the revolutionary war) the second amendment was to be invoked when the first amendment, The right to assemble, did not get the message across. The right to bear arms is in the constitution for the sole purpose of protection against the government, this was clearly stated by the founders. so if you want to talk about rights being trampled, how about looking at your statement again when criticizing people who are actually exercising and therefore protecting the first amendment. Would you rather we move to the second amendment protection this soon in the movement, because it will most certainly come if the first amendment doesn't work. Lets hope it does not get to that and people are allowed to continue to air their grievances publicly as the constitution was meant to allow. I love the constitution and I love this country and I love that I have the right to publicly assemble and have my voice be heard. Why not try contributing your own voicce to the discussion, what do you see wrong with this country and what do you think should be done about it. I bet we have a lot more in common than you think.

[-] 1 points by AFarewellToKings (1486) 2 years ago

The right to assemble I think did get the message across, loud and clear. I congratulate and thank OWS. But Don't conflate the 1st Amendment right to assembly with the 1st Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. To carry any weight it has to be written (petitions are typically written documents) and endorsed by a broad based representative group. A National General Assembly as per the 99% Declaration would deliver a List Of Grievances that has some teeth.

https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/

You may benefit from the historical precedent to understand better the act of petitioning and making resolves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffolk_Resolves 1774 leading to the Declaration Of Independence

[-] 1 points by whisper (212) 2 years ago

OWS needs to stand on the firm ground of the idea that Rights are not granted to men by anything other than the fact that they exist. If the government violates these rights (as it has done with almost every one of those explicitly stated in the bill of rights), it is the right and responsibility of the people to clearly and concisely call them out. If they do not respond by lifting the restrictions placed upon those rights and recognizing those rights as superior to any power the government may be granted or appropriate for itself, then it is our responsibility to refuse to recognize the authority and legitimacy of said government. I think that this movement (or the movement that will come out of it) needs to elect its own government, mirroring the United States government, then demand that the current members of the United States government step down. This will, of course, fail. But it may, if done correctly, spark real debates between the people of this country and their representatives and the representatives chosen by OWS (or the subsequent movement). Just a thought.

[-] 1 points by vothmr (82) from Harrisonburg, VA 2 years ago

i agree that debates and dialogue are extremely important. however i don't think all rights are absolute. i.e. i don't think anyone should be allowed to have an RPG or should be allowed to incite violence. however taken literally, the bill of rights protects stuff like that. there has to be limits to certain things.

[-] 2 points by whisper (212) 2 years ago

Nobody has the right to incite violence. That would violate the rights of others (right to life). One cannot claim to have a right to violate the rights of others. Possession of an RPG, however, is not a violation of anyone else's rights.

I've noticed that many people do not understand how to distinguish a right from a privilege. A right is a requirement of life in accordance with the particular type and nature of life it pertains to. A right is something held by all members of a particular type of life (in this case, human life). Human beings have the right to life, which is the right to provide for their own survival. It is not the right to remain alive at the expense of someone else, nor is it the right to be alive. One either is alive or is not. If someone is alive, they have the "right to life". If someone is not alive, they are not technically a person and do not have rights. Due to the specific nature of human life, human beings have the right to liberty. This is the right to use one's mind in order to evaluate reality and act according to what one observes so long as one does not violate the rights of another. The right to the pursuit of happiness is somewhat superfluous. Its implications are covered by the right to liberty.

In short, a right is the legitimate authority to act. Rights are possessed by all individuals independent of whether or not someone else grants them to an individual or a group of individuals. No one can have the legitimate authority to decide the rights of others. Privilege, on the other hand, is permission which is granted to someone by one who has the legitimate authority to grant it. If I own a house and you want to sleep in it tonight, I have the legitimate authority to grant you permission to do so (granting you a privilege) or to decide not to do so. You do not have a right to sleep in my house (or in any house which you do not own).

[-] 1 points by vothmr (82) from Harrisonburg, VA 2 years ago

however i do have the right to shoot someone who is attempting to or has the intention to cause me great bodily harm. im not questioning right vs privilege. im asking if the OWS movement had its way, would my second amendment rights be restored to pre Assault weapons ban state? yes or no

[-] 1 points by whisper (212) 2 years ago

Going by the majority of ideas that get thrown around here, probably not.

[-] 1 points by vothmr (82) from Harrisonburg, VA 2 years ago

well there goes any lingering support i had for the movement

[-] 1 points by kickthemout (83) 2 years ago

More information for you about the Second Amendment. Watch what former State legislator Suzanna Hupp went through. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanna_Hupp, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis&feature=related

[-] 1 points by shooz (26680) 2 years ago

The movement and I are against constitutional corporate personhood.

The second amendment should have prevented this, but did not.

What did you plan to do with your assault weapon?

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 2 years ago

The second amendment is that little voice inside of the power hungry that says "There's 80 million gun owners in the US, don't push your luck"

[-] 1 points by vothmr (82) from Harrisonburg, VA 2 years ago

thanks to the virtues of this nation, you can go become number 80000001 and say, "please do". gun owners aren't violent. violent people are violent.

[-] 1 points by vothmr (82) from Harrisonburg, VA 2 years ago

i don't own an assault weapon. and never will because it would have to spend a minimum of 10000 bucks. i just think we restrict the wrong things. I.e. AK's are illegal in certain states because they look evil even though a US made weapon that fires the same bullet exactly the same is perfectly legal. this is my AWB rant.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26680) 2 years ago

The MO , is to never answer the questions.

[-] 1 points by vothmr (82) from Harrisonburg, VA 2 years ago

hey, we all want impossible things. i don't think that i should have to register a suppressor but i do. i think the assault weapons ban was the dumbest piece of legislature ever written, but i still have to live with its consequences. if you want to end the second amendment then i would just like to know. if not then thank you haha

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 2 years ago

I don't think many protesters would be in favor of giving the police and military sole access to firearms...

[-] 1 points by vothmr (82) from Harrisonburg, VA 2 years ago

good. have the police used anything other than less than lethal means on protestors though?

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

The manufacturers call them "less lethal" because they can indeed be lethal. Less than lethal implies that they don't kill anyone. While pepper spray is not likely to kill anyone when used properly tear gas and projectiles most definitely can.

[-] 1 points by vothmr (82) from Harrisonburg, VA 2 years ago

you have it wrong, non-lethal implies cannot kill. i fully recognize that they can kill, hence less than lethal. however, tear gas and pepper spray suck (ive experienced them both) and bean bags sure as hell would deter me. the point is that NOT A SINGLE ROUND OF LIVE AMMUNITION HAS BEEN EXPENDED ON THE OWS MOVEMENT. it has only been approved riot and crowd control techniques that would be used on any protest protesting anything

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

Never mind I think we are both right. I kind of misread what you said.

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

No I am right. They have indeed used "less lethal" weapons at occupy events. Don't take my word for it though:

http://www.less-lethal.com/

[-] 1 points by vothmr (82) from Harrisonburg, VA 2 years ago

nomenclature aside, they have not busted out the buckshot and the ar15's. every protest has had that stuff used on it. its just part of protesting

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

Yea I understand. I worry about when they will start using the electromagnetic weapons. That will be game over for democracy.

[-] 1 points by vothmr (82) from Harrisonburg, VA 2 years ago

my dad stood in front of the one thats supposed to cause a burning sensation. he said it sucks just stops the instant you walk out of the beam

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

I saw some tough guy test it out on television. It looks like it sucks. Why was your dad in front of one? He isn't a Somali pirate is he?

[-] 1 points by vothmr (82) from Harrisonburg, VA 2 years ago

haha, he is in the military and was at a base and they asked if he wanted to see it. he said it was the best riot control device ever invented

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 2 years ago

Nope.

Just a lot of pepper spray, beatings, shooting bean bangs, gas canisters and other painful things.

That's what I've seen on the news though. Here in Miami its alright.

[-] 1 points by vothmr (82) from Harrisonburg, VA 2 years ago

if the OWS people in those regions were to just listen when they were told that they can protest but that the camp must be removed because its a cesspool then the police wouldn't use those tactics. they are not emotionless robots, the police are people too who are actually part of the 99%. i don't see why people are hating on the cops. its not their fault that people are being tear gasses and bean bagged and things

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

They aren't. Your making this up as you go.

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 2 years ago

what?

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

He is agitating an us v them "hating on the cops".

They aren't hating on the cops. It's more of the same. :/

And trying to create an issue where none exists.

[-] 1 points by vothmr (82) from Harrisonburg, VA 2 years ago

the same what? i fail to understand where you see the falacy in my argument. i have read dozens of articles saying that the police should be disbanded for being violent and brutal and blah blah blah when really, have the police killed anyone yet? is anyone permanently injured?

[-] 1 points by vothmr (82) from Harrisonburg, VA 2 years ago

riots and crowd control are chaotic. i think for the amount of police intervention used, the injury rate has been extremely and the use of violence by protestors and police has been pretty low too so my commendations to both sides

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

Great,then start providing links to those articles.

Show that you have an actual argument.

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 2 years ago

I don't know about other cities, but here in Miami its just protesting as far as I can tell. :\

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

It was incorporated here http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-1521

It is a non-issue.