giving up a right

[mcmcallister]

i am currently taking a writing class at the local college and today my professor put up an interesting assignment. If you had to give up one right, what would it be. listed were the bill of rights. i was shocked and almost $@#% myself when i heard a young lady say, "thats easy, the right to bear arms, we dont need them and any time theres a gun around it just causes trouble".....I was about to scream at the top of my lungs YOU @#%#$@ MORON. but i kept calm and just stated that without that right she was not guaranteed any of the others, and that is why the founding fathers made sure it was written in there. this young lady gave me an evil look and said, "so if someone trys to take away your right to free speech your gonna shoot em"....i thought hard for a brief second, wanting to say damn strait...but thought of somthing better. i told her "you have the right to free speech because i bear arms, you may choose not to bear arms, but i would rather have to hear you opinion, than loose mine"


anyone else have a thought on this, after this afternoon i thought i should just throw it out here.

[cigarmanpa]

If I had to make a choice, I'd go with the third amendment...

[GunLawyer001]

The world is filled, even today, with examples of nations populated by unarmed citizens and armed governments, and the rights & freedoms of those citizens exist exactly as long as their rulers feel like allowing them.

Almost every example of citizens successfully rising up and taking back their freedom involves firearms. The examples of unarmed citizens trying to rise up tend to be particularly bloody, as when the Chinese made a stand in Tienanmen Square; we saw the opening chapter, when the kid with the shopping bags stared down a tank; we didn't see the finale, when more motivated tank crews ran over the dissidents and crushed bits of them between the stones and their tank treads.

Look at all the nations that the Leftie weenies keep holding benefits for, and whining that the USA should DO SOMETHING to stop the atrocities. Well, maybe if the folks in Darfur or Tibet had their own guns, maybe THEY could win back their own freedom, and maybe they wouldn't have lost it in the first place.

The NAZI's didn't round up millions of armed Jews. The Somali warlords aren't terrorizing villages of AK-toting farmers. The Cambodian killing fields aren't full of skeletons holding rusty M-16's. Those blood diamonds aren't being mined by slaves who were kidnapped while cleaning their pistols. When only the government has guns, the people can only do what the government allows, whether that government is the revolutionary junta or a Congress that doesn't even pretend to read the laws it forces on us. And governments always reduce freedom over time, they don't increase freedom, except when they compel one group of citizens to serve another group.

[snakeman21]

cigarmanpa:

Kudos for the "300" sig!


On topic: It is a hard question, what right to give up. They are all important, and essential for our state of living. I, too, would have to go with the 3rd amendment. I would certainly NOT give up the right to bear arms, as that is the only one that gives us the power to actively defend ourselves from tyranny.

[Dave in PA]

If you're asking which one to write about. Your classmate made it a littl easier, did she not? Suggest the 19th ammendment, since it only applies to roughly half of the population. The rest of the ammendments apply to a greater percentage of the population or were paid for in blood. You could point out poor voter turn out as a supporting arguement to keep it somewhat civil.

Or if you want to stir the pot, repeal the 21st ammendment, although the effect would be felt by nearly the entire population, either by loss of access to drink, or reduced tax revenue.

[MrBi11]

Is there really a question:

The Sixteenth Amendment (Amendment XVI) to the United States Constitution allows the Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on Census results. This amendment overruled Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895), which limited the Congress's authority to levy an income tax.

It was ratified on February 3, 1913.

[5711-Marine]

If it is limited to the Bill of Rights I agree with the 3rd as the easy choice.
If you are not limited to the Bill of Rights and the whole of the Constitution is fair game, be controversial and give up the limitation on Ex Post Facto laws since the congress has already violated Article IX with the 90% tax on bonuses paid to employees of firms receiving TARP funds.

Or even more controversial give up the XXIII Amendment as the District of Colombia was never intended to be inhabited by citizens of the United States.

Lookup the history of the Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783 which caused Congress to flee Philadelphia (and it is a nice tie in to your defense of the 2nd Amendment).

[MostlyHarmless]

i told her "you have the right to free speech because i bear arms, you may choose not to bear arms, but i would rather have to hear you opinion, than loose mine"

Very good response, rep sent.

Being 45 years "young", in the process of evaluating to eventually trade my German citizenship for American (I actually try to get dual, but it's a bit tricky) and obviously a tiny bit more into these things, I have been reading over that bill of rights over and over.

The more I read it, the more clear it is. The bill of rights is not just a list of "things forgotten" when writing the Constitution. These first 10 Amendments are far more than that. They are a set of carefully crafted rights. Like the wording says, the whole is always more than the sum of its pieces. You cannot give up one of those rights without compromising the others. And you drove that very point well home with your response!

I think if you want to take a bold stance, state you actually would rather choose not to.


Jan

[Skullz]

It's a completely flawed question.

Those rights are inherent - they are not granted by the Constitution. If the BOR didn't exist, those are all human rights that exist.

The BOR was supposed to prevent the government from attempting to infringe upon those basic human rights, not declare their existence.

Skullz

[Pa. Patriot]

It's a completely flawed question.

Those rights are inherent - they are not granted by the Constitution. If the BOR didn't exist, those are all human rights that exist.

The BOR was supposed to prevent the government from attempting to infringe upon those basic human rights, not declare their existence.

Skullz

^^^ This.

My paper would be about just that. Also about how the Q is further flawed in that it is impossible to be compelled ("have to") to give up a right. All free beings have choices. A person or entity can attempt to deprive you of a right, and you can go along quietly or not. Your choice.

After pointing out how the question can not be answered I would add that I would instead *decide* to fight for those rights that can not be taken from me, even if my death were the outcome.

PS: Good luck with your paper