On Rights
Haven't had any plans to post here, but thought this article could be of some use for some of you guys:
http://www.sidis.net/rights2.htm
http://www.sidis.net/rights2.htm
0
-
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
Thanks Don, well said.
Jim, in your opinion what are the problems with the 2nd amendment that need managed?
Don,
Go up to the NBC thread and I think you will see the answer to this question, basically, not in detail.
Thanks for asking!
That question was asked by buffalobo, Jim.
I believe I understand your take on that pesky little word 'infringe'.[:)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Mr. Wolf, you made a comment about the 'shot heard around the world' as a perfect/pure/ideal environment. Do you realize that when this country was founded black slaves had NO rights, certainly no right to be armed. Women could not vote. And the word 'militia' appeared in the 2nd Amendment, and at this 'ideal' time it referred ONLY to 'able bodied, men, between a certain age'????
The word 'militia' has no bearing on the operative clause of the 2nd Amendment. It is not only a freedom thing, it is a language thing.
From paragraph 1(a) in the Heller decision:
'The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.'
Can we finally put this silly 'militia' discussion to bed?
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
I believe the founders were wise beyond their time and had alot of common sense, and if they were here today they would not say the intent of the 2nd was so any one who could afford it could have a thermal nuclear weapon in their home. They would agree there is one 'absolute' right, that is the right of self defense. Regardless of the organism size it has the right to defend it's self if attacked, we humans are the only organism which rely on technology to defend ourselves, thus the need for the 2nd. It is how ever not with it's problems. These MUST be addressed and not ignored, as many of you are doing!
The founders may well have thought that the right to self-defense was absolute. They probably also thought it obvious, which is, I would guess, one of the reasons it is not mentioned in the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment, of course, has nothing to do with self defense, though Gun Controllers love to think that it is about self-defense, hunting, and the shooting sports. Again, the prefatory clause states the purpose, that being 'The Security of a free State', thus ensuring that the population has access to the means to resist a tyrannical government and its agents.
Thanks Don, well said.
Jim, in your opinion what are the problems with the 2nd amendment that need managed?
Don,
Go up to the NBC thread and I think you will see the answer to this question, basically, not in detail.
Thanks for asking!
Jim, thanks for the reply. Due to a shortage of time on my part, I will reread referenced thread and reply later. I think the management of free people and thier rights is not up to the govt. or society as a group.0 -
I guess we are talking semantics here. 'Laws' are what we use in the republican form of government to 'manage' people. So with out any laws to mange people we have anarchy!
In a FREE country the rights of the individual MUST come before those of the collective, but the welfare of the collective must also be considered. We should limit the 'laws/management' to as little as is absolutely necessary, and here in lies the problem!!!
I would error on the side of the individual if it were up to me, in other words I am for VERY LIMITED government!!!
Reference the comment about the 2nd A having nothing to do with self defense. How silly is that that, you are the very people who says that is ALL it is about. Whether it is defence against a tyrannical government or your life, home, family, or community. The 2nd Amendment is 100% pure self defense!!!0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
I guess we are talking semantics here. 'Laws' are what we use in the republican form of government to 'manage' people. So with out any laws to mange people we have anarchy!
In a FREE country the rights of the individual MUST come before those of the collective, but the welfare of the collective must also be considered. We should limit the 'laws/management' to as little as is absolutely necessary, and here in lies the problem!!!
I would error on the side of the individual if it were up to me, in other words I am for VERY LIMITED government!!!
Reference the comment about the 2nd A having nothing to do with self defense. How silly is that that, you are the very people who says that is ALL it is about. Whether it is defence against a tyrannical government or your life, home, family, or community. The 2nd Amendment is 100% pure self defense!!!
Not semantics, Jim, philosophy. Laws are put in place in order that government has a written legal method to address people who refuse to manage themselves and who, by those actions harm or damage others. Obviously people owning and carrying firearms are expected to manage themselves, and in the event they do not, these laws will be used to address those actions that have caused harm. Managing these people is restricting their actions and activities in order to prevent them from harming others. A futile path to be sure, but one that you and the Bradys' seem to embrace.
Regarding the concept that preserving the ability to secure our state of freedom is just self-defense:
Even that comparison is not semantics, it is simply wrong. The reality (I know you like that concept) of gun rights advocacy has focused on personal self defense against a criminal element. It is almost never brought up as a means to preserve our liberties. This touchy-feely view, the self-defense view, distorts the intent of the 2nd, and leaves our youth believing that the 2nd is all about hunting, the shooting sports, and protecting oneself from a criminal. Read the prefatory clause again, Jim. It states the true purpose; 'the security of a free State'. Nothing what-so-ever to do with self-defense.
As previously stated, self-defense is obvious. The fact that our Founders implemented a policy whereby the governed were guaranteed the capacity to resist their own government is brilliance.0 -
quote:As previously stated, self-defense is obvious. The fact that our Founders implemented a policy whereby the governed were guaranteed the capacity to resist their own government is brilliance.
Just touches the surface...
'We The People' WERE the government in the days of the Founders...we were SOVEREIGN CITIZENS then.
Those brilliant men were FULLY aware that men would gravitate to position of authority...and would seize ever greater power to themselves, and a centralized government.
They FULLY intended to NEVER allow that to happen....and phrased the Second Amendment to alert us, their descendants, to their ultimate aims.
A pox on those that not ONLY have turned their backs on the Founders...but vilify those of us that have not.0 -
If we lose all our other rights, having a gun won't mean much. You are deluding yourself in thinking if the US turns into a totalitarian state that you'll be able to fight back effectively against that totalitarian state regardless of how well armed you are. You'll be too afraid to do anything that could suggest that you might be a potential troublemaker to the tyranny. By yourself you'll have little power to do anything but shoot up some government office, going out in a blaze of glory. If you try to organize with others to be more effective, you will most likely be found out by the tyrannical government and arrested before you can do anything.
The most important right is one that almost never gets mentioned when it comes talking about rights as it's not included in the Bill of Rights but is in the Constitution; Habeas Corpus. It is that a person cannot be kept in prison for any meaningful length of time unless they have first been brought before a court of law, which decides whether it is legal for them to be kept in prison. Because if the government can make you essentially disappear, they can easily stop any dissent. Any attempt to protest or object to government outrages or abuses will be ended by the government arresting the key members who will never be seen again.0 -
quote:The most important right is one that almost never gets mentioned when it comes talking about rights as it's not included in the Bill of Rights but is in the Constitution; Habeas Corpus. It is that a person cannot be kept in prison for any meaningful length of time unless they have first been brought before a court of law, which decides whether it is legal for them to be kept in prison. Because if the government can make you essentially disappear, they can easily stop any dissent. Any attempt to protest or object to government outrages or abuses will be ended by the government arresting the key members who will never be seen again.
bush took care of that pesky little detail...now mccain is putting the finishing touches on it.
All that you are saying may well be true.
Is it is...enjoy living with the killing fields and slit trenches, won't you ?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
I guess we are talking semantics here. 'Laws' are what we use in the republican form of government to 'manage' people. So with out any laws to mange people we have anarchy!
In a FREE country the rights of the individual MUST come before those of the collective, but the welfare of the collective must also be considered. We should limit the 'laws/management' to as little as is absolutely necessary, and here in lies the problem!!!
I would error on the side of the individual if it were up to me, in other words I am for VERY LIMITED government!!!
Reference the comment about the 2nd A having nothing to do with self defense. How silly is that that, you are the very people who says that is ALL it is about. Whether it is defence against a tyrannical government or your life, home, family, or community. The 2nd Amendment is 100% pure self defense!!!
Not semantics, Jim, philosophy. Laws are put in place in order that government has a written legal method to address people who refuse to manage themselves and who, by those actions harm or damage others. Obviously people owning and carrying firearms are expected to manage themselves, and in the event they do not, these laws will be used to address those actions that have caused harm. Managing these people is restricting their actions and activities in order to prevent them from harming others. A futile path to be sure, but one that you and the Bradys' seem to embrace.
Regarding the concept that preserving the ability to secure our state of freedom is just self-defense:
Even that comparison is not semantics, it is simply wrong. The reality (I know you like that concept) of gun rights advocacy has focused on personal self defense against a criminal element. It is almost never brought up as a means to preserve our liberties. This touchy-feely view, the self-defense view, distorts the intent of the 2nd, and leaves our youth believing that the 2nd is all about hunting, the shooting sports, and protecting oneself from a criminal. Read the prefatory clause again, Jim. It states the true purpose; 'the security of a free State'. Nothing what-so-ever to do with self-defense.
As previously stated, self-defense is obvious. The fact that our Founders implemented a policy whereby the governed were guaranteed the capacity to resist their own government is brilliance.
Don, as usual, well stated.
Jim, why do you feel these laws are needed? Do the 4473 forms and checks actually keep bad guys from getting guns or commiting crimes? What will be accomplished if gun shows are eliminated? Are we really any safer due to the thousands of gun control laws enacted?0 -
Gentlemen,
I am rather amused, disheartened, and enraged when I read through this thread. Great points have been made about the philosophy of the founding fathers. The reliance on the primary sources for our government are based not on any fanaticism, but are meant to keep us focused on the fundamentals.
Stepping away from the 2nd Amendment, but staying within the realm of political philosophy, a statement by Mr. Rau caught my eye:
"In a FREE country the rights of the individual MUST come before those of the collective, but the welfare of the collective must also be considered. We should limit the 'laws/management' to as little as is absolutely necessary, and here in lies the problem!!!"
I see elsewhere that Mr. Rau may espouse the words of James Madison when Madison stated that "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." However, the founders themselves made no suggestion that they were angels and, in fact, felt that they should not trust even themselves with that absolute power. Thus the "seperation of powers" and "checks and balances" on those powers were established in the new government. This is, therefore, the very reason that adherance to the Constitution is necessary and neither idealistic nor fanatical.
Regarding rights of the individual and representation of the "collective," a word that I believe smacks of socialism, there appears to be some confusion. The supremecy clause of the Constitution and the establishment of a bicameral legislature in Article 1 are set to assure that the rights of the individual are respected, but that the majority rules. Without getting into a littany of quotes from the Federalist Papers or the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, I would like to point out to Mr. Rau that it is because of the possibility of the tyranny of the majority, or of a government destructive of the rights it is prescribed to protect, that the first 10 amendments were added to the Constitution, of which the 2nd is most important, in order to retain all others listed.
Another flaw I see with Mr. Rau's argument is that he may not fully comprehend what a society of self-restraint might look like, though he seemingly touts this belief in his signature. IF the government could be restrained, or, better yet, self-restrained, perhaps we would all have a clearer model to pattern ourselves upon. In conclusion, and, with what has been mentioned, I would ask Mr. Rau: who shall be deemed worthy to determine precisely what level of law or management is absolutely necessary?
Best Regards!0 -
"...Habeas Corpus. It is that a person cannot be kept in prison for any meaningful length of time unless they have first been brought before a court of law, which decides whether it is legal for them to be kept in prison. Because if the government can make you essentially disappear, they can easily stop any dissent. Any attempt to protest or object to government outrages or abuses will be ended by the government arresting the key members who will never be seen again."
Lincoln did it nearly 150 years ago. How could he liberate the oppressed while at the same time destroy all the freedom that those once oppressed were supposed to now enjoy.
A revolution would not be easy I am certain, but what rights to habeas corpus were limited also by the King's men? Perhaps that is why roughly a third of the nation supported revolution at it's dawn, but those brave few wanted what their rights that were infringed upon and would not be denied.
Best Regards!0 -
quote:Originally posted by krazy4krags
Gentlemen,
I am rather amused, disheartened, and enraged when I read through this thread. Great points have been made about the philosophy of the founding fathers. The reliance on the primary sources for our government are based not on any fanaticism, but are meant to keep us focused on the fundamentals.
Stepping away from the 2nd Amendment, but staying within the realm of political philosophy, a statement by Mr. Rau caught my eye:
"In a FREE country the rights of the individual MUST come before those of the collective, but the welfare of the collective must also be considered. We should limit the 'laws/management' to as little as is absolutely necessary, and here in lies the problem!!!"
I see elsewhere that Mr. Rau may espouse the words of James Madison when Madison stated that "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." However, the founders themselves made no suggestion that they were angels and, in fact, felt that they should not trust even themselves with that absolute power. Thus the "seperation of powers" and "checks and balances" on those powers were established in the new government. This is, therefore, the very reason that adherance to the Constitution is necessary and neither idealistic nor fanatical.
Regarding rights of the individual and representation of the "collective," a word that I believe smacks of socialism, there appears to be some confusion. The supremecy clause of the Constitution and the establishment of a bicameral legislature in Article 1 are set to assure that the rights of the individual are respected, but that the majority rules. Without getting into a littany of quotes from the Federalist Papers or the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, I would like to point out to Mr. Rau that it is because of the possibility of the tyranny of the majority, or of a government destructive of the rights it is prescribed to protect, that the first 10 amendments were added to the Constitution, of which the 2nd is most important, in order to retain all others listed.
Another flaw I see with Mr. Rau's argument is that he may not fully comprehend what a society of self-restraint might look like, though he seemingly touts this belief in his signature. IF the government could be restrained, or, better yet, self-restrained, perhaps we would all have a clearer model to pattern ourselves upon. In conclusion, and, with what has been mentioned, I would ask Mr. Rau: who shall be deemed worthy to determine precisely what level of law or management is absolutely necessary?
Best Regards!
Great post, krazy4krags.
I am particularly struck by how you chose to phrase the highlighted sentances. You will be a welcome addition to these forums.
Don0 -
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
I guess we are talking semantics here. 'Laws' are what we use in the republican form of government to 'manage' people. So with out any laws to mange people we have anarchy!
In a FREE country the rights of the individual MUST come before those of the collective, but the welfare of the collective must also be considered. We should limit the 'laws/management' to as little as is absolutely necessary, and here in lies the problem!!!
I would error on the side of the individual if it were up to me, in other words I am for VERY LIMITED government!!!
Reference the comment about the 2nd A having nothing to do with self defense. How silly is that that, you are the very people who says that is ALL it is about. Whether it is defence against a tyrannical government or your life, home, family, or community. The 2nd Amendment is 100% pure self defense!!!
Not semantics, Jim, philosophy. Laws are put in place in order that government has a written legal method to address people who refuse to manage themselves and who, by those actions harm or damage others. Obviously people owning and carrying firearms are expected to manage themselves, and in the event they do not, these laws will be used to address those actions that have caused harm. Managing these people is restricting their actions and activities in order to prevent them from harming others. A futile path to be sure, but one that you and the Bradys' seem to embrace.
Regarding the concept that preserving the ability to secure our state of freedom is just self-defense:
Even that comparison is not semantics, it is simply wrong. The reality (I know you like that concept) of gun rights advocacy has focused on personal self defense against a criminal element. It is almost never brought up as a means to preserve our liberties. This touchy-feely view, the self-defense view, distorts the intent of the 2nd, and leaves our youth believing that the 2nd is all about hunting, the shooting sports, and protecting oneself from a criminal. Read the prefatory clause again, Jim. It states the true purpose; 'the security of a free State'. Nothing what-so-ever to do with self-defense.
As previously stated, self-defense is obvious. The fact that our Founders implemented a policy whereby the governed were guaranteed the capacity to resist their own government is brilliance.
Don, as usual, well stated.
Jim, why do you feel these laws are needed? Do the 4473 forms and checks actually keep bad guys from getting guns or commiting crimes? What will be accomplished if gun shows are eliminated? Are we really any safer due to the thousands of gun control laws enacted?
I guess you all do not get it!!![:(!]
No the 4473 are worthless, why would you even thing I support this crap?
WHAT PART OF VERY LIMITED GOVERNMENT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND??????[:(!]
If you read my posts you will see I have pointed that:
1. We have allowed the progressives to normalize and legalize their extremism for many decades. This crap like the 4473 and DV restriction are perfect examples of which I speak!!
2. Thus I believe that 99.9% of the laws which limit the RTKABA's, which are currently on the books, at all levels of government, are unconstitutional!!
But I do not believe any of the 'rights' addressed in the Constitution are absolute. THEY ALL REQUIRE MANGEMENT!! The RTKABA's should have less restriction than any other because it is the Right which protects ALL THE OTHERS. It is the 'enforcement clause' of the Constitution. When dealing with 'people' the words ALWAYS AND NEVER are nonexistent, and if you say there should be absolutely NO LIMITS to the RTKABA's you are WRONG. You defy and deny human nature and reality.
Can I make it any clearer than that. I am 99.9% in agreement with even the most extreme of you.
I am this way because I had the same, I say again the SAME mind set many here have and I saw the error or fallacy of it. If you want to continue to bad mouth, attack and alienate those who do not have the same CLOSEMINDED view you do so be. You only undermine your own creditability.
If you want to discuss the merits of your point of view, as some here do, you are giving others who happen by something to think about. This why I continue to post here. I know those who have a closed mind will not change, but those who are looking for info can get both sides.
If any here thing I am the 'enemy' you need to see a mental health professional BAD!!![V]0 -
All this aside:
I havent had the chance to tell ya yet, But its good to see you posting again Jim..0 -
Jim,
"Either one believes in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that this country was founded on, as written, or one does not."
You say that you "used to" but no longer. [V]
Just WHO are we to allow to be the judge on what is a "reasonable" infringement?
YOU?
(quote)
I believe that 99.9% of the laws are unconstitutional
(/quote)
So a .01% infringement is OK.
Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the house?
(quote)
If I had my way, sporting guns would be strictly regulated, the rest would be confiscated.
(/quote)
The Brady bunch?
one of their goals.....
(quote)
banning military-style assault weapons
(/quote)
Or maybe Dianne Feinstein?
(quote)
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it."
(/quote)
Just what level of "infringement" are YOU comfortable with?
Exactly which of the .01% laws are OK?
Please name them.
Now you are trying to convince us to accept YOUR level of infringement?
Why? Why stop there? Why not Feinstein's level?
Breaking the contract by .01% or 100% is still breaking the contract.
One more quote....
(QUOTE)
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
Benjamin Franklin
(/QUOTE)0 -
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the house?
(quote)
If I had my way, sporting guns would be strictly regulated, the rest would be confiscated.
(/quote)
Do you have a source for that quote? I ask because that quote is setting off by BS detector.0 -
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
Look it up yourself, I did.
I did look it up. All I found was circular references. If she said this, then when and where did she say it?
Be careful of what you'll accept as true without question. If someone is going to manipulate you, they'll do so by telling you what you want to hear.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Redoubtable
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the house?
(quote)
If I had my way, sporting guns would be strictly regulated, the rest would be confiscated.
(/quote)
Do you have a source for that quote? I ask because that quote is setting off by BS detector.
OK, even if I take that out of my post,
does it change the basic principal of the post?
Edit,
Redoubtable,
My first post was an initial reaction to your question.
Then, I went to look it up, and could NOT find a "creditable" source.
I deleted that post before I saw yours.
I apologize for that.
I do like to deal with facts.
I admit, I was lazy, saw that quote before, and did not research it, as I should have.
Thanks for pointing that out.
But my above question still remains. [;)][:D][:D]0 -
Geez S! All this because people like me, and a few others, don't think it should be legal for a 5 year old to take a loaded gun to school or to sell guns out of vending machines? It is fricking hopeless.
Man, some of us are our own worst enemies.0 -
I have come to the conclusion that gun control is, indeed, NEEDED,.
The TrFoxes of this MUST be disarmed..for their own safety. ..They are not snart enough to teach their children gun safety...nor the difference between 'Rights' and 'responsibilities.'
I am afraid that the trfoxes of this world would become an endangered species, if freedom suddenly broke out.....
And I believe fox knows this.0 -
Let alone gun ownership issues. The question is whether you agree, or not, with the article references in OP? And why.
I've been discussing the issue with some of my friends and acquaintances and more often than not people tend to think, especially the atheist crowd, that rights of men indeed do not exist. There are some valid arguments that have been presented in the past to support that point of view, and it all comes down to where do these essential rights originate.
I would start here. Weapon ownership is a derivative right of something more fundamental, and the denial of such a right can be, and in my opinion, ought to be seen as denial of those fundamentals.
I hope it's coherent enough for most to comprehend.0 -
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
Jim,
"Either one believes in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that this country was founded on, as written, or one does not."
You say that you "used to" but no longer. [V]
Just WHO are we to allow to be the judge on what is a "reasonable" infringement?
YOU?
(quote)
I believe that 99.9% of the laws are unconstitutional
(/quote)
So a .01% infringement is OK.
Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the house?
(quote)
If I had my way, sporting guns would be strictly regulated, the rest would be confiscated.
(/quote)
The Brady bunch?
one of their goals.....
(quote)
banning military-style assault weapons
(/quote)
Or maybe Dianne Feinstein?
(quote)
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it."
(/quote)
Just what level of "infringement" are YOU comfortable with?
Exactly which of the .01% laws are OK?
Please name them.
Now you are trying to convince us to accept YOUR level of infringement?
Why? Why stop there? Why not Feinstein's level?
Breaking the contract by .01% or 100% is still breaking the contract.
One more quote....
(QUOTE)
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
Benjamin Franklin
(/QUOTE)
"As it is written". I do, but I believe in the 'realistic' application and you believe in the 'idealistic' application of the 'way it is written'. Your views allow for absolutely no interpretation, ie; zero tolerance for those who do not agree with the way you see it. This is not and has never worked for anyone at any time EVER!!!
Many have tried this approach, Obama, Stalin, Hitler, and many others.
Every 'law', including the Constitution has two sides, the 'letter of the law' and the 'spirit/intent' of the law. When you place humans in the equation you will find the letter of the law MUST be tempered by the spirit/intend. There are to many variables in the real world to have a 'zero tolerance' in ANY law. I tell people who I discuss 'zero tolerance' with that is great for weak mined people who are afraid to make decisions. (This is not an attack on you, but the point I made to school administrator and police chiefs whom I have disagreed with reference this issue.)
The point I am trying to make is we MUST protect the individuals right, but we also MUST consider the rights of the collective.
I am a traditionalist who say the rights of the individual are the MOST important thing to be considered, and the government should only intervene or limit an individual right when it is absolutely necessary.
Example, drive by shootings. They are a very bad situation and far to common in gang infested community's. If we had NO restriction what so ever on the RTKABA's would the drive by's be with a magazine feed semi auto, as they are now, or a belt feed mini gun?? Do we say everyone who wants to defend themselves should need a belt feed machine gun on their porch just have this 'ideal' world many here want???
The Constitution is not an 'ideal or perfect' document. Is is the best one out to date, and it is VERY good. The people we refer to as 'founders' were not perfect either, but they were VERY good people and they did a very good job a supplying us with a solid foundation to build a free country. BUT we have allow the progressive to undermine this foundation and it MUST be stopped. The RTKABA's is only part of the problem, but is the MOST important part of the problem. To have this TOTALY ridged closed minded stance only plays into there hands and further their goal to dis arm us and force there agenda on us all.
I apply the 'reality test' to everything I do. If it is not realistic why waste time and resources on anything you know will fail.
Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is what the idealists have done throughout history, but they keep getting the SAME results!!! Go figure.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Redoubtable
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the house?
(quote)
If I had my way, sporting guns would be strictly regulated, the rest would be confiscated.
(/quote)
Do you have a source for that quote? I ask because that quote is setting off by BS detector.
April 7, 2009. On Good Morning America. Questioned by host Robin Roberts on gun control. Her response was the above quote.0 -
quote:Originally posted by cccooper
quote:Originally posted by Redoubtable
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the house?
(quote)
If I had my way, sporting guns would be strictly regulated, the rest would be confiscated.
(/quote)
Do you have a source for that quote? I ask because that quote is setting off by BS detector.
April 7, 2009. On Good Morning America. Questioned by host Robin Roberts on gun control. Her response was the above quote.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2009/04/07/abcs-robin-roberts-hits-pelosi-left-guns
A transcript of the conversation is there. The above quote is not said in their conversation. Newsbusters is about as right leaning as they come so there would be no reason for them to edit out that comment.
Honestly, doesn't anyone do the most basic fact-checking?0 -
quote:Originally posted by cccooper
quote:Originally posted by Redoubtable
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the house?
(quote)
If I had my way, sporting guns would be strictly regulated, the rest would be confiscated.
(/quote)
Do you have a source for that quote? I ask because that quote is setting off by BS detector.
April 7, 2009. On Good Morning America. Questioned by host Robin Roberts on gun control. Her response was the above quote.
Barbara Boxer made a comment about having her way when she was first elected .
Do not remember the exact quote .
I think this is what you are referring to .0 -
quote:Originally posted by trapguy2007
quote:Originally posted by cccooper
quote:Originally posted by Redoubtable
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the house?
(quote)
If I had my way, sporting guns would be strictly regulated, the rest would be confiscated.
(/quote)
Do you have a source for that quote? I ask because that quote is setting off by BS detector.
April 7, 2009. On Good Morning America. Questioned by host Robin Roberts on gun control. Her response was the above quote.
Barbara Boxer made a comment about having her way when she was first elected .
Do not remember the exact quote .
I think this is what you are referring to .
Both of them are SPE's (secure progressive extremist) and can't be trusted. They will do and say what ever the must to further their progressive agenda, as we have seen since the SP have taken control of the leadership in all three houses. (white house, house of representatives, and the senate)!!![:(!]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rockatansky
Let alone gun ownership issues. The question is whether you agree, or not, with the article references in OP? And why.
I've been discussing the issue with some of my friends and acquaintances and more often than not people tend to think, especially the atheist crowd, that rights of men indeed do not exist. There are some valid arguments that have been presented in the past to support that point of view, and it all comes down to where do these essential rights originate.
I would start here. Weapon ownership is a derivative right of something more fundamental, and the denial of such a right can be, and in my opinion, ought to be seen as denial of those fundamentals.
I hope it's coherent enough for most to comprehend.
In absence of a deity, there is the law of nature.
Even in nature, all things have a right to defend themselves, and do so.
Man, especailly America, lays law so that ALL men have an equal footing. A footing here, so that no matter your rank in the pecking order, you have the same "rights".0 -
quote:"As it is written". I do, but I believe in the 'realistic' application and you believe in the 'idealistic' application of the 'way it is written'. Your views allow for absolutely no interpretation, ie; zero tolerance for those who do not agree with the way you see it. This is not and has never worked for anyone at any time EVER!!!
Many have tried this approach, Obama, Stalin, Hitler, and many others.
Every 'law', including the Constitution has two sides, the 'letter of the law' and the 'spirit/intent' of the law. When you place humans in the equation you will find the letter of the law MUST be tempered by the spirit/intend.
I do believe sir, that we may indeed be arguing for the same purposes regarding our freedoms, but it comes to a fundamental question of interpretation.
For certain, the founders themselves argued over the direction of the revolution and what their interpretation would produce in action. The arguments resulted in the development of political parties. To adhere to the fundamentals many would argue, could be an archaic grasp at an idealistic straw. I argue, as does Mcmanus, that keeping a certain standard, no matter the interpretation of how it should be implemented by the imperfect mind and heart of many a man, the standard shall be maintained to hold the men accountable. If we are not accountable to a particular standard, or, we are constantly altering that standard to allow for the imperfections, then we might as well accept the anarchy that would eventually ensue as we have lowered the bar to such a degree that liberty has succumbed to tyranny.
Best Regards0 -
This phrase.......while not exactly the same.....
"If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns that is, guns for self-defense, would be banned."
Originally came from Deborah Prothrow-Stith, then Dean of the Harvard School of Public Health. Her book is "Deadly Consequences" published in 1991.
Granted, Prothrow-Stith is not quite the "name dropper" that Pelosi is.0 -
quote:Originally posted by krazy4krags
quote:"As it is written". I do, but I believe in the 'realistic' application and you believe in the 'idealistic' application of the 'way it is written'. Your views allow for absolutely no interpretation, ie; zero tolerance for those who do not agree with the way you see it. This is not and has never worked for anyone at any time EVER!!!
Many have tried this approach, Obama, Stalin, Hitler, and many others.
Every 'law', including the Constitution has two sides, the 'letter of the law' and the 'spirit/intent' of the law. When you place humans in the equation you will find the letter of the law MUST be tempered by the spirit/intend.
I do believe sir, that we may indeed be arguing for the same purposes regarding our freedoms, but it comes to a fundamental question of interpretation.
For certain, the founders themselves argued over the direction of the revolution and what their interpretation would produce in action. The arguments resulted in the development of political parties. To adhere to the fundamentals many would argue, could be an archaic grasp at an idealistic straw. I argue, as does Mcmanus, that keeping a certain standard, no matter the interpretation of how it should be implemented by the imperfect mind and heart of many a man, the standard shall be maintained to hold the men accountable. If we are not accountable to a particular standard, or, we are constantly altering that standard to allow for the imperfections, then we might as well accept the anarchy that would eventually ensue as we have lowered the bar to such a degree that liberty has succumbed to tyranny.
Best Regards
I agree completely. My standards are VERY HIGH, just not high enough for those who believe there should be NO limits/restrictions/management of the RTKABA's!
Until I came to this web site I was considered VERY radical/extreme by literally everyone (hundreds of people it not thousands) I know in my stance on the RTKABA's!!! Well there are a few here who are more radical/extreme than I, but very few. For them to label me as the 'enemy' is laughable and only hurts the cause. WE, for the most part, agree in concept, it is the details (as it always is) where we differ.
I believe 99.9% of all laws on the books today which restrict/limit/ manage the RTKABA's are unconstitutional!! Those who believe 100% of these laws are unconstitutional call me and others with similar beliefs the 'enemy', how ridiculous is that????
The old quote "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" comes to mind. Let us work on getting the 99.9% of these laws repealed than we can 'fight' about the other 1/10 of 1% of them left!!!![;)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by krazy4krags
quote:"As it is written". I do, but I believe in the 'realistic' application and you believe in the 'idealistic' application of the 'way it is written'. Your views allow for absolutely no interpretation, ie; zero tolerance for those who do not agree with the way you see it. This is not and has never worked for anyone at any time EVER!!!
Many have tried this approach, Obama, Stalin, Hitler, and many others.
Every 'law', including the Constitution has two sides, the 'letter of the law' and the 'spirit/intent' of the law. When you place humans in the equation you will find the letter of the law MUST be tempered by the spirit/intend.
I do believe sir, that we may indeed be arguing for the same purposes regarding our freedoms, but it comes to a fundamental question of interpretation.
For certain, the founders themselves argued over the direction of the revolution and what their interpretation would produce in action. The arguments resulted in the development of political parties. To adhere to the fundamentals many would argue, could be an archaic grasp at an idealistic straw. I argue, as does Mcmanus, that keeping a certain standard, no matter the interpretation of how it should be implemented by the imperfect mind and heart of many a man, the standard shall be maintained to hold the men accountable. If we are not accountable to a particular standard, or, we are constantly altering that standard to allow for the imperfections, then we might as well accept the anarchy that would eventually ensue as we have lowered the bar to such a degree that liberty has succumbed to tyranny.
Best Regards
I agree completely. My standards are VERY HIGH, just not high enough for those who believe there should be NO limits/restrictions/management of the RTKABA's!
Until I came to this web site I was considered VERY radical/extreme by literally everyone (hundreds of people it not thousands) I know in my stance on the RTKABA's!!! Well there are a few here who are more radical/extreme than I, but very few. For them to label me as the 'enemy' is laughable and only hurts the cause. WE, for the most part, agree in concept, it is the details (as it always is) where we differ.
I believe 99.9% of all laws on the books today which restrict/limit/ manage the RTKABA's are unconstitutional!! Those who believe 100% of these laws are unconstitutional call me and others with similar beliefs the 'enemy', how ridiculous is that????
The old quote "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" comes to mind. Let us work on getting the 99.9% of these laws repealed than we can 'fight' about the other 1/10 of 1% of them left!!!![;)]
Yeah?
so you agree with .1% of the gun control laws.
WHICH ones specifically do you agree with?0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
110 comments