For Tr Fox, special
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.
In order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end of government, let us suppose a small number of persons settled in some sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest; they will then represent the first peopling of any country, or of the world. In this state of natural liberty, society will be their first thought. A thousand motives will excite them thereto; the strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the same. Four or five united would be able to raise a tolerable dwelling in the midst of a wilderness, but one man might labour out the common period of life without accomplishing any thing; when he had felled his timber he could not remove it, nor erect it after it was removed; hunger in the mean time would urge him to quit his work, and every different want would call him a different way. Disease, nay even misfortune, would be death; for, though neither might be mortal, yet either would disable him from living, and reduce him to a state in which he might rather be said to perish than to die.
Thus necessity, like a gravitating power, would soon form our newly arrived emigrants into society, the reciprocal blessings of which would supersede, and render the obligations of law and government unnecessary while they remained perfectly just to each other; but as nothing but Heaven is impregnable to vice, it will unavoidably happen that in proportion as they surmount the first difficulties of emigration, which bound them together in a common cause, they will begin to relax in their duty and attachment to each other: and this remissness will point out the necessity of establishing some form of government to supply the defect of moral virtue.
Some convenient tree will afford them a State House, under the branches of which the whole Colony may assemble to deliberate on public matters. It is more than probable that their first laws will have the title only of Regulations and be enforced by no other penalty than public disesteem. In this first parliament every man by natural right will have a seat.
But as the Colony encreases, the public concerns will encrease likewise, and the distance at which the members may be separated, will render it too inconvenient for all of them to meet on every occasion as at first, when their number was small, their habitations near, and the public concerns few and trifling. This will point out the convenience of their consenting to leave the legislative part to be managed by a select number chosen from the whole body, who are supposed to have the same concerns at stake which those have who appointed them, and who will act in the same manner as the whole body would act were they present. If the colony continue encreasing, it will become necessary to augment the number of representatives, and that the interest of every part of the colony may be attended to, it will be found best to divide the whole into convenient parts, each part sending its proper number: and that the ELECTED might never form to themselves an interest separate from the ELECTORS, prudence will point out the propriety of having elections often: because as the ELECTED might by that means return and mix again with the general body of the ELECTORS in a few months, their fidelity to the public will be secured by the prudent reflection of not making a rod for themselves. And as this frequent interchange will establish a common interest with every part of the community, they will mutually and naturally support each other, and on this, (not on the unmeaning name of king,) depends the STRENGTH OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE HAPPINESS OF THE GOVERNED.
Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz. Freedom and security. And however our eyes may be dazzled with show, or our ears deceived by sound; however prejudice may warp our wills, or interest darken our understanding, the simple voice of nature and reason will say, 'tis right.
I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in nature which no art can overturn, viz. that the more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered, and the easier repaired when disordered; and with this maxim in view I offer a few remarks on the so much boasted constitution of England. That it was noble for the dark and slavish times in which it was erected, is granted. When the world was overrun with tyranny the least remove therefrom was a glorious rescue. But that it is imperfect, subject to convulsions, and incapable of producing what it seems to promise is easily demonstrated.
Absolute governments, (tho' the disgrace of human nature) have this advantage with them, they are simple; if the people suffer, they know the head from which their suffering springs; know likewise the remedy; and are not bewildered by a variety of causes and cures. But the constitution of England is so exceedingly complex, that the nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover in which part the fault lies; some will say in one and some in another, and every political physician will advise a different medicine.
I know it is difficult to get over local or long standing prejudices, yet if we will suffer ourselves to examine the component parts of the English Constitution, we shall find them to be the base remains of two ancient tyrannies, compounded with some new Republican materials.
First. - The remains of Monarchical tyranny in the person of the King.
Secondly. - The remains of Aristocratical tyranny in the persons of the Peers.
Thirdly. - The new Republican materials, in the persons of the Commons, on whose virtue depends the freedom of England.
The two first, by being hereditary, are independent of the People; wherefore in a CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE they contribute nothing towards the freedom of the State.
To say that the constitution of England is an UNION of three powers, reciprocally CHECKING each other, is farcical; either the words have no meaning, or they are flat contradictions.
First. - That the King it not to be trusted without being looked after; or in other words, that a thirst for absolute power is the natural disease of monarchy.
Secondly. - That the Commons, by being appointed for that purpose, are either wiser or more worthy of confidence than the Crown.
But as the same constitution which gives the Commons a power to check the King by withholding the supplies, gives afterwards the King a power to check the Commons, by empowering him to reject their other bills; it again supposes that the King is wiser than those whom it has already supposed to be wiser than him. A mere absurdity!
There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of Monarchy; it first excludes a man from the means of information, yet empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgment is required. The state of a king shuts him from the World, yet the business of a king requires him to know it thoroughly; wherefore the different parts, by unnaturally opposing and destroying each other, prove the whole character to be absurd and useless.
Some writers have explained the English constitution thus: the King, say they, is one, the people another; the Peers are a house in behalf of the King, the commons in behalf of the people; but this hath all the distinctions of a house divided against itself; and though the expressions be pleasantly arranged, yet when examined they appear idle and ambiguous; and it will always happen, that the nicest construction that words are capable of, when applied to the description of something which either cannot exist, or is too incomprehensible to be within the compass of description, will be words of sound only, and though they may amuse the ear, they cannot inform the mind: for this explanation includes a previous question, viz. HOW CAME THE KING BY A POWER WHICH THE PEOPLE ARE AFRAID TO TRUST, AND ALWAYS OBLIGED TO CHECK? Such a power could not be the gift of a wise people, neither can any power, WHICH NEEDS CHECKING, be from God; yet the provision which the constitution makes supposes such a power to exist.
But the provision is unequal to the task; the means either cannot or will not accomplish the end, and the whole affair is a Felo de se: for as the greater weight will always carry up the less, and as all the wheels of a machine are put in motion by one, it only remains to know which power in the constitution has the most weight, for that will govern: and tho' the others, or a part of them, may clog, or, as the phrase is, check the rapidity of its motion, yet so long as they cannot stop it, their endeavours will be ineffectual: The first moving power will at last have its way, and what it wants in speed is supplied by time.
That the crown is this overbearing part in the English constitution needs not be mentioned, and that it derives its whole consequence merely from being the giver of places and pensions is self-evident; wherefore, though we have been wise enough to shut and lock a door against absolute Monarchy, we at the same time have been foolish enough to put the Crown in possession of the key.
The prejudice of Englishmen, in favour of their own government, by King, Lords and Commons, arises as much or more from national pride than reason. Individuals are undoubtedly safer in England than in some other countries: but the will of the king is as much the law of the land in Britain as in France, with this difference, that instead of proceeding directly from his mouth, it is handed to the people under the formidable shape of an act of parliament. For the fate of Charles the First hath only made kings more subtle - not more just.
Wherefore, laying aside all national pride and prejudice in favour of modes and forms, the plain truth is that IT IS WHOLLY OWING TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PEOPLE, AND NOT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT that the crown is not as oppressive in England as in Turkey.
An inquiry into the CONSTITUTIONAL ERRORS in the English form of government, is at this time highly necessary; for as we are never in a proper condition of doing justice to others, while we continue under the influence of some leading partiality, so neither are we capable of doing it to ourselves while we remain fettered by any obstinate prejudice. And as a man who is attached to a prostitute is unfitted to choose or judge of a wife, so any prepossession in favour of a rotten constitution of government will disable us from discerning a good one.
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.
In order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end of government, let us suppose a small number of persons settled in some sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest; they will then represent the first peopling of any country, or of the world. In this state of natural liberty, society will be their first thought. A thousand motives will excite them thereto; the strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the same. Four or five united would be able to raise a tolerable dwelling in the midst of a wilderness, but one man might labour out the common period of life without accomplishing any thing; when he had felled his timber he could not remove it, nor erect it after it was removed; hunger in the mean time would urge him to quit his work, and every different want would call him a different way. Disease, nay even misfortune, would be death; for, though neither might be mortal, yet either would disable him from living, and reduce him to a state in which he might rather be said to perish than to die.
Thus necessity, like a gravitating power, would soon form our newly arrived emigrants into society, the reciprocal blessings of which would supersede, and render the obligations of law and government unnecessary while they remained perfectly just to each other; but as nothing but Heaven is impregnable to vice, it will unavoidably happen that in proportion as they surmount the first difficulties of emigration, which bound them together in a common cause, they will begin to relax in their duty and attachment to each other: and this remissness will point out the necessity of establishing some form of government to supply the defect of moral virtue.
Some convenient tree will afford them a State House, under the branches of which the whole Colony may assemble to deliberate on public matters. It is more than probable that their first laws will have the title only of Regulations and be enforced by no other penalty than public disesteem. In this first parliament every man by natural right will have a seat.
But as the Colony encreases, the public concerns will encrease likewise, and the distance at which the members may be separated, will render it too inconvenient for all of them to meet on every occasion as at first, when their number was small, their habitations near, and the public concerns few and trifling. This will point out the convenience of their consenting to leave the legislative part to be managed by a select number chosen from the whole body, who are supposed to have the same concerns at stake which those have who appointed them, and who will act in the same manner as the whole body would act were they present. If the colony continue encreasing, it will become necessary to augment the number of representatives, and that the interest of every part of the colony may be attended to, it will be found best to divide the whole into convenient parts, each part sending its proper number: and that the ELECTED might never form to themselves an interest separate from the ELECTORS, prudence will point out the propriety of having elections often: because as the ELECTED might by that means return and mix again with the general body of the ELECTORS in a few months, their fidelity to the public will be secured by the prudent reflection of not making a rod for themselves. And as this frequent interchange will establish a common interest with every part of the community, they will mutually and naturally support each other, and on this, (not on the unmeaning name of king,) depends the STRENGTH OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE HAPPINESS OF THE GOVERNED.
Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz. Freedom and security. And however our eyes may be dazzled with show, or our ears deceived by sound; however prejudice may warp our wills, or interest darken our understanding, the simple voice of nature and reason will say, 'tis right.
I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in nature which no art can overturn, viz. that the more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered, and the easier repaired when disordered; and with this maxim in view I offer a few remarks on the so much boasted constitution of England. That it was noble for the dark and slavish times in which it was erected, is granted. When the world was overrun with tyranny the least remove therefrom was a glorious rescue. But that it is imperfect, subject to convulsions, and incapable of producing what it seems to promise is easily demonstrated.
Absolute governments, (tho' the disgrace of human nature) have this advantage with them, they are simple; if the people suffer, they know the head from which their suffering springs; know likewise the remedy; and are not bewildered by a variety of causes and cures. But the constitution of England is so exceedingly complex, that the nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover in which part the fault lies; some will say in one and some in another, and every political physician will advise a different medicine.
I know it is difficult to get over local or long standing prejudices, yet if we will suffer ourselves to examine the component parts of the English Constitution, we shall find them to be the base remains of two ancient tyrannies, compounded with some new Republican materials.
First. - The remains of Monarchical tyranny in the person of the King.
Secondly. - The remains of Aristocratical tyranny in the persons of the Peers.
Thirdly. - The new Republican materials, in the persons of the Commons, on whose virtue depends the freedom of England.
The two first, by being hereditary, are independent of the People; wherefore in a CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE they contribute nothing towards the freedom of the State.
To say that the constitution of England is an UNION of three powers, reciprocally CHECKING each other, is farcical; either the words have no meaning, or they are flat contradictions.
First. - That the King it not to be trusted without being looked after; or in other words, that a thirst for absolute power is the natural disease of monarchy.
Secondly. - That the Commons, by being appointed for that purpose, are either wiser or more worthy of confidence than the Crown.
But as the same constitution which gives the Commons a power to check the King by withholding the supplies, gives afterwards the King a power to check the Commons, by empowering him to reject their other bills; it again supposes that the King is wiser than those whom it has already supposed to be wiser than him. A mere absurdity!
There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of Monarchy; it first excludes a man from the means of information, yet empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgment is required. The state of a king shuts him from the World, yet the business of a king requires him to know it thoroughly; wherefore the different parts, by unnaturally opposing and destroying each other, prove the whole character to be absurd and useless.
Some writers have explained the English constitution thus: the King, say they, is one, the people another; the Peers are a house in behalf of the King, the commons in behalf of the people; but this hath all the distinctions of a house divided against itself; and though the expressions be pleasantly arranged, yet when examined they appear idle and ambiguous; and it will always happen, that the nicest construction that words are capable of, when applied to the description of something which either cannot exist, or is too incomprehensible to be within the compass of description, will be words of sound only, and though they may amuse the ear, they cannot inform the mind: for this explanation includes a previous question, viz. HOW CAME THE KING BY A POWER WHICH THE PEOPLE ARE AFRAID TO TRUST, AND ALWAYS OBLIGED TO CHECK? Such a power could not be the gift of a wise people, neither can any power, WHICH NEEDS CHECKING, be from God; yet the provision which the constitution makes supposes such a power to exist.
But the provision is unequal to the task; the means either cannot or will not accomplish the end, and the whole affair is a Felo de se: for as the greater weight will always carry up the less, and as all the wheels of a machine are put in motion by one, it only remains to know which power in the constitution has the most weight, for that will govern: and tho' the others, or a part of them, may clog, or, as the phrase is, check the rapidity of its motion, yet so long as they cannot stop it, their endeavours will be ineffectual: The first moving power will at last have its way, and what it wants in speed is supplied by time.
That the crown is this overbearing part in the English constitution needs not be mentioned, and that it derives its whole consequence merely from being the giver of places and pensions is self-evident; wherefore, though we have been wise enough to shut and lock a door against absolute Monarchy, we at the same time have been foolish enough to put the Crown in possession of the key.
The prejudice of Englishmen, in favour of their own government, by King, Lords and Commons, arises as much or more from national pride than reason. Individuals are undoubtedly safer in England than in some other countries: but the will of the king is as much the law of the land in Britain as in France, with this difference, that instead of proceeding directly from his mouth, it is handed to the people under the formidable shape of an act of parliament. For the fate of Charles the First hath only made kings more subtle - not more just.
Wherefore, laying aside all national pride and prejudice in favour of modes and forms, the plain truth is that IT IS WHOLLY OWING TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PEOPLE, AND NOT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT that the crown is not as oppressive in England as in Turkey.
An inquiry into the CONSTITUTIONAL ERRORS in the English form of government, is at this time highly necessary; for as we are never in a proper condition of doing justice to others, while we continue under the influence of some leading partiality, so neither are we capable of doing it to ourselves while we remain fettered by any obstinate prejudice. And as a man who is attached to a prostitute is unfitted to choose or judge of a wife, so any prepossession in favour of a rotten constitution of government will disable us from discerning a good one.
0
-
And then we have proof of Highball being a hypocrite. Either that or knowing he is in the company of sensible people, chooses to not express his usual extreme position. See Highball's post from the General Forum below:
Posted - 11/27/2009 : 11:16:21 PM By HIghball
Nope...not a bit.
I supposed the 'usual suspects' would read the words of a highly respected member of this forum...AND the real world...note the closeness of the two independent observations...and draw a conclusion hardly in keeping with your thoughts , Mr. Nunn.
I certainly appreciate your coming back and making it perfectly clear to the peanut gallery, however.
On a side note...I am not really the anarchist many believe I am. I merely think we NEED far less laws then we have...and continue to place on the books at a dizzying rate.
I FULLY understand the need for certain laws.and damn good men to back up those laws.
END OF HIGHBALL'S POST
In red above. When Highball is surrounded by his cronies here on the Gun Rights Cave, He ALWAYS advocates ABSOLUTELY NO GUN LAWS WHAT-SO-EVER. But apparently, when he recoginizes he is in sane company, he cowardly tones down his rethoric. Tones it down a LOT!0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
And then we have proof of Highball being a hypocrite. Either that or knowing he is in the company of sensible people, chooses to not express his usual extreme position. See Highball's post from the General Forum below:
Posted - 11/27/2009 : 11:16:21 PM By HIghball
Nope...not a bit.
I supposed the 'usual suspects' would read the words of a highly respected member of this forum...AND the real world...note the closeness of the two independent observations...and draw a conclusion hardly in keeping with your thoughts , Mr. Nunn.
I certainly appreciate your coming back and making it perfectly clear to the peanut gallery, however.
On a side note...I am not really the anarchist many believe I am. I merely think we NEED far less laws then we have...and continue to place on the books at a dizzying rate.
I FULLY understand the need for certain laws.and damn good men to back up those laws.
END OF HIGHBALL'S POST
In red above. When Highball is surrounded by his cronies here on the Gun Rights Cave, He ALWAYS advocates ABSOLUTELY NO GUN LAWS WHAT-SO-EVER. But apparently, when he recoginizes he is in sane company, he cowardly tones down his rethoric. Tones it down a LOT!
Dude, seriously, I have NEVER seen a bigger ignoramus, nor one who so consistently fails to grasp what are simple and clear concepts, than you.
'Sloth' is a perfect descriptor for your abilities in thought process and for your cognitive reasoning abilities.
I mean that, really.
A sad display, again.....0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
And then we have proof of Highball being a hypocrite. Either that or knowing he is in the company of sensible people, chooses to not express his usual extreme position. See Highball's post from the General Forum below:
Posted - 11/27/2009 : 11:16:21 PM By HIghball
Nope...not a bit.
I supposed the 'usual suspects' would read the words of a highly respected member of this forum...AND the real world...note the closeness of the two independent observations...and draw a conclusion hardly in keeping with your thoughts , Mr. Nunn.
I certainly appreciate your coming back and making it perfectly clear to the peanut gallery, however.
On a side note...I am not really the anarchist many believe I am. I merely think we NEED far less laws then we have...and continue to place on the books at a dizzying rate.
I FULLY understand the need for certain laws.and damn good men to back up those laws.
END OF HIGHBALL'S POST
In red above. When Highball is surrounded by his cronies here on the Gun Rights Cave, He ALWAYS advocates ABSOLUTELY NO GUN LAWS WHAT-SO-EVER. But apparently, when he recoginizes he is in sane company, he cowardly tones down his rethoric. Tones it down a LOT!
Fox - ...and the reason you chose to quote another forum entry and put it here was... ? ? ? ?
Go get a life and an education.
COB0 -
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
And then we have proof of Highball being a hypocrite. Either that or knowing he is in the company of sensible people, chooses to not express his usual extreme position. See Highball's post from the General Forum below:
Posted - 11/27/2009 : 11:16:21 PM By HIghball
Nope...not a bit.
I supposed the 'usual suspects' would read the words of a highly respected member of this forum...AND the real world...note the closeness of the two independent observations...and draw a conclusion hardly in keeping with your thoughts , Mr. Nunn.
I certainly appreciate your coming back and making it perfectly clear to the peanut gallery, however.
On a side note...I am not really the anarchist many believe I am. I merely think we NEED far less laws then we have...and continue to place on the books at a dizzying rate.
I FULLY understand the need for certain laws.and damn good men to back up those laws.
END OF HIGHBALL'S POST
In red above. When Highball is surrounded by his cronies here on the Gun Rights Cave, He ALWAYS advocates ABSOLUTELY NO GUN LAWS WHAT-SO-EVER. But apparently, when he recoginizes he is in sane company, he cowardly tones down his rethoric. Tones it down a LOT!
Dude, seriously, I have NEVER seen a bigger ignoramus, nor one who so consistently fails to grasp what are simple and clear concepts, than you.
'Sloth' is a perfect descriptor for your abilities in thought process and for your cognitive reasoning abilities.
I mean that, really.
A sad display, again.....
Yours is a common and simple minded tactic. If you have no intelligent thought to express against the message, then instead throw something at the messenger. I believe this concept started in ancient Rome, but you and many others here have perfected it.
If you read Highballs quote above, he contradicts his usual position. His usual position is that NO GUN LAWS are constitutional. In the above quote he states "we need far fewer gun laws." I what I just described is not the action of a hypocrite then please explain it to me.0 -
quote:Originally posted by COBmmcmss
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
And then we have proof of Highball being a hypocrite. Either that or knowing he is in the company of sensible people, chooses to not express his usual extreme position. See Highball's post from the General Forum below:
Posted - 11/27/2009 : 11:16:21 PM By HIghball
Nope...not a bit.
I supposed the 'usual suspects' would read the words of a highly respected member of this forum...AND the real world...note the closeness of the two independent observations...and draw a conclusion hardly in keeping with your thoughts , Mr. Nunn.
I certainly appreciate your coming back and making it perfectly clear to the peanut gallery, however.
On a side note...I am not really the anarchist many believe I am. I merely think we NEED far less laws then we have...and continue to place on the books at a dizzying rate.
I FULLY understand the need for certain laws.and damn good men to back up those laws.
END OF HIGHBALL'S POST
In red above. When Highball is surrounded by his cronies here on the Gun Rights Cave, He ALWAYS advocates ABSOLUTELY NO GUN LAWS WHAT-SO-EVER. But apparently, when he recoginizes he is in sane company, he cowardly tones down his rethoric. Tones it down a LOT!
Fox - ...and the reason you chose to quote another forum entry and put it here was... ? ? ? ?
Go get a life and an education.
COB
If I find evidence of, for example hypocrisy, from any source I will use it in my interest.0 -
quote:Yours is a common and simple minded tactic. If you have no intelligent thought to express against the message, then instead throw something at the messenger. I believe this concept started in ancient Rome, but you and many others here have perfected it.
If you read Highballs quote above, he contradicts his usual position. His usual position is that NO GUN LAWS are constitutional. In the above quote he states "we need far fewer gun laws." I what I just described is not the action of a hypocrite then please explain it to me.HB contradicted absolutely 'nothing'.
YOU are the esteemed personage who fails to 'contextualize' this one post from a host of others which led up to it and which led on to a number of others, fox.
Of course, I expect that you know that, but it simply didn't suit your increasingly desperate purpose of finding 'someone', 'somewhere' who will 'somehow' come to agree with you.
Good luck fox...
By the way, you misquoted Highball in your very own 'gotcha post'. quote:If you read Highballs quote above, he contradicts his usual position. His usual position is that NO GUN LAWS are constitutional. In the above quote he states "we need far fewer gun laws." I what I just described is not the action of a hypocrite then please explain it to me.Is that 'really' what Highball said, fox, or, rather, did he say "we NEED far less laws than we have"?
Was he 'really' talking about 'gun-laws', or just about laws in general, in a philosophical sense?
I think you know the answer, huh?
What a disingenuous dufus you are.....and an embarrassment to boot.0 -
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Yours is a common and simple minded tactic. If you have no intelligent thought to express against the message, then instead throw something at the messenger. I believe this concept started in ancient Rome, but you and many others here have perfected it.
If you read Highballs quote above, he contradicts his usual position. His usual position is that NO GUN LAWS are constitutional. In the above quote he states "we need far fewer gun laws." I what I just described is not the action of a hypocrite then please explain it to me.HB contradicted absolutely 'nothing'.
YOU are the esteemed personage who fails to 'contextualize' this one post from a host of others which led up to it and which led on to a number of others, fox.
Of course, I expect that you know that, but it simply didn't suit your increasingly desperate purpose of finding 'someone', 'somewhere' who will 'somehow' come to agree with you.
Good luck fox...
By the way, you misquoted Highball in your very own 'gotcha post'. quote:If you read Highballs quote above, he contradicts his usual position. His usual position is that NO GUN LAWS are constitutional. In the above quote he states "we need far fewer gun laws." I what I just described is not the action of a hypocrite then please explain it to me.Is that 'really' what Highball said, fox, or, rather, did he say "we NEED far less laws than we have"?
Was he 'really' talking about 'gun-laws', or just about laws in general, in a philosophical sense?
I think you know the answer, huh?
What a disingenuous dufus you are.....and an embarrassment to boot.
Since the topic post was about gun laws, it is obvious Highballs comment about merely needing "fewer" laws was a hypocritical contradiction on his usual position of the US Constitution requiring NO GUN LAWS. You can try to slice it and dice it, but even you can see the truth.
Now, send some more "kill the messenger" responses.0 -
quote:Now, send some more "kill the messenger" responses.No, fox, I will simply call you out for lying in an attempt to disparage a friend of mine, to make a point that does not exist.
You are lower than scum, in my eyes. I can't abide a liar.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
[brPosted - 11/27/2009 : 11:16:21 PM By HIghball
On a side note...I am not really the anarchist many believe I am. I merely think we NEED far less laws then we have...and continue to place on the books at a dizzying rate.
I FULLY understand the need for certain laws.and damn good men to back up those laws.
END OF HIGHBALL'S POST
In red above. When Highball is surrounded by his cronies here on the Gun Rights Cave, He ALWAYS advocates ABSOLUTELY NO GUN LAWS WHAT-SO-EVER. But apparently, when he recoginizes he is in sane company, he cowardly tones down his rethoric. Tones it down a LOT!
Yours is a common and simple minded tactic. If you have no intelligent thought to express against the message, then instead throw something at the messenger. I believe this concept started in ancient Rome, but you and many others here have perfected it.
If you read Highballs quote above, he contradicts his usual position. His usual position is that NO GUN LAWS are constitutional. In the above quote he states "we need far fewer gun laws." I what I just described is not the action of a hypocrite then please explain it to me.
Gosh damn man, trying to talk to you is akin to wiping ones azz on a wagon wheel!!
WHERE, WHERE, YOU DUMB AZZ(sorry pickenup[B)])IN HIGHBALL'S POST ABOVE DOES HE STATE "WE NEED FAR FEWER GUNLAWS?????????SHOW ME!!! YOU DUMB AZZ(sorry again pickenup[B)][B)])SHOW ME!!!!!!!0 -
Are you fools blind? On a gun rights topic HIghball posted this:
merely think we NEED far less laws then we have...and continue to place on the books at a dizzying rate.
I FULLY understand the need for certain laws.and damn good men to back up those laws
Let me walk you thorough this. Gun rights topic. Highball saying "we need far less laws." Yet some here refuse to see that HIghball is referring to gun laws.
In addition he goes on to say he understands the need for certain laws. Now, since that was posted under a gun rights topic, you would have to be an idiot not too understand that Highball was reffering to gun laws.
Yet here in the safety of the Gun Rights Cave Highball preaches that there should be no gun laws at all because of the Constitution.
But like I said, some people are just too dumb to see the truth.0 -
WASSAMATTER, CAN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION FROM THE POST ABOVE???????? HIGHBALL IS NOT TALKING ABOUT GUN LAWS, JUST ASK HIM!!!!!!! DUDE, YOU ARE IN SERIOUS NEED OF A MENTAL EVALUATION!!!! 0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Are you fools blind? On a gun rights topic HIghball posted this:
merely think we NEED far less laws then we have...and continue to place on the books at a dizzying rate.
I FULLY understand the need for certain laws.and damn good men to back up those laws
Let me walk you thorough this. Gun rights topic. Highball saying "we need far less laws." Yet some here refuse to see that HIghball is referring to gun laws.
In addition he goes on to say he understands the need for certain laws. Now, since that was posted under a gun rights topic, you would have to be an idiot not too understand that Highball was reffering to gun laws.
Yet here in the safety of the Gun Rights Cave Highball preaches that there should be no gun laws at all because of the Constitution.
But like I said, some people are just too dumb to see the truth.
Sorry, fox. That schite ain't going to fly.
You are simply a bold-faced liar, one who attempted to twist the actual words used by a friend and a good American man, to make a false point.
As I said, you are lower than scum in my eyes and you have provided me an interesting revelation of your true underlying character.
Have a nice life...0 -
Max,
I am sorry to have hijacked your thread. It is actually very informative, yet it will surely be lost on your target audience.
I wish that I had stayed off of this one, since it is worthy of discussion.
The only positive that came of the side-tracking, is that a liar has clearly been exposed. One who before, was merely looked at as being misguided and ignorant.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
If you read Highballs quote above, he contradicts his usual position. His usual position is that NO GUN LAWS are constitutional. In the above quote he states "we need far fewer gun laws."
Please show us where he said "GUN" in his post, or just admit that you are AGAIN trying to twist statements to suit your purpose. Not the first time you have used this tactic.
The same as you do when you say that people that believe in the constitution advocate giving VIOLENT FELONS guns. I have seen statements saying VIOLENT FELONS "SHOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED IN PUBLIC" if they are deemed to be a threat to society. Yet you repeatedly (yes, I will use the word) LIE in your statements. I would "almost" feel sorry for someone that feels this kind of tactic is acceptable, but with the frequency that you use it, I am unable to.0 -
Thank you, brothers...I have been away from the computer, and if our good Captain had not captured what Fox hastened to change, that all would have been a mystery.
But not really...mental cases will fabricate WHATEVER it takes to advance their agenda.
The proposition is rather simple, of course ;
NO GUN LAWS.PERIOD !!
We have FAR too many laws on the books in EVERY OTHER AREA OF OUR LIVES.ALSO.
Naturally...a fevered imagination requires EVERY detail to be spelled out, to the last letter..0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
15 comments