Taxpayer funded rights?

[Pauls' Revere]

https://news.yahoo.com/taxpayer-funded-abortion-let-guns-103012664.html

It’s only fair: If Democrats want to kill the Hyde amendment and stick pro-life taxpayers with the tab for the constitutionally protected abortions that the Left loves so much, then Republicans should enact Guns for All and force pro-gun-control taxpayers to underwrite the constitutionally protected firearms that the Right loves so much.

On second thought, let’s try this:

Democrats should keep their sticky fingers off the Hyde amendment, and Republicans should ignore Guns for All as an idea whose time has not come. Instead, this simple concept should enjoy bipartisan support: If you want an abortion or a gun, pay for it yourself.

Couldn't agree more, about the only right the government should fund that I can think of off the top of my head is the right to an attorney if you can't afford it. Only to ensure some kind of fair justice system.

[Swordsmyth]

The Constitution mandates that Congress arm the militia, according to the Dick act every adult male is part of the unorganized militia.

I want my M-14.

[oyarde]

I like M 14's but I also need a BAR and a .30 Cal machinegun.

[Swordsmyth]

I like M 14's but I also need a BAR and a .30 Cal machinegun.

And a Bazooka.

[Danke]

The Constitution mandates that Congress arm the militia, according to the Dick act every adult male is part of the unorganized militia.

I want my M-14.

"and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,"

Not sure I want to be "governed" by the United States.

[Swordsmyth]

"and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,"

Not sure I want to be "governed" by the United States.
The unorganized militia are not "employed in the service of the United States" unless called up during an invasion of the homeland.
And you are already part of the unorganized militia according to the Dick act.

[Superfluous Man]

https://news.yahoo.com/taxpayer-funded-abortion-let-guns-103012664.html

It’s only fair: If Democrats want to kill the Hyde amendment and stick pro-life taxpayers with the tab for the constitutionally protected abortions that the Left loves so much, then Republicans should enact Guns for All and force pro-gun-control taxpayers to underwrite the constitutionally protected firearms that the Right loves so much.

On second thought, let’s try this:

Democrats should keep their sticky fingers off the Hyde amendment, and Republicans should ignore Guns for All as an idea whose time has not come. Instead, this simple concept should enjoy bipartisan support: If you want an abortion or a gun, pay for it yourself.

Couldn't agree more, about the only right the government should fund that I can think of off the top of my head is the right to an attorney if you can't afford it. Only to ensure some kind of fair justice system.

If you honestly believe that people have a right to have taxpayers be forced to pay for their attorneys (which is neither just nor constitutional, so long as the original intent is being followed), then you might as well also support taxpayer funded guns. I see no difference between those rights that would entail taxpayer funding for the one and not the other.

[Pauls' Revere]

If you honestly believe that people have a right to have taxpayers be forced to pay for their attorneys (which is neither just nor constitutional, so long as the original intent is being followed), then you might as well also support taxpayer funded guns. I see no difference between those rights that would entail taxpayer funding for the one and not the other.

Point taken, then those who can afford one get an attorney or find a pro bono one.

[Swordsmyth]

If you honestly believe that people have a right to have taxpayers be forced to pay for their attorneys (which is neither just nor constitutional, so long as the original intent is being followed), then you might as well also support taxpayer funded guns. I see no difference between those rights that would entail taxpayer funding for the one and not the other.


Point taken, then those who can afford one get an attorney or find a pro bono one.


Sorry, but they do have a right to taxpayer funded attorneys as long as the state gets a taxpayer funded prosecutor.

And no, anarchy and an end to government courts is not a better idea.

[Superfluous Man]

Sorry, but they do have a right to taxpayer funded attorneys as long as the state gets a taxpayer funded prosecutor.

And no, anarchy and an end to government courts is not a better idea.

Even if you were right about government courts, it's still a fact that the Constitution, understood according to its original intent, does not guarantee taxpayer funded defense attorneys. To support that, you either have to support violating the Constitution, amending it, or legislating from the bench.

[Swordsmyth]

Even if you were right about government courts, it's still a fact that the Constitution, understood according to its original intent, does not guarantee taxpayer funded defense attorneys. To support that, you either have to support violating the Constitution, amending it, or legislating from the bench.
I'd say it was a legitimate 9th Amendment right to give the accused a (sort of) level playing field.
The founders included the 9thA for a reason, if the courts give us a real basic human right that they forgot then you shouldn't complain. (Abortion and other such judicially declared "rights" are obviously NOT basic human rights)