UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (57) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: colbyhouse Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 134544  
Subject: Owning a gun Date: 1/20/2013 1:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 29
I keep getting this question so here's the answer. Feel free to use it or share it.
Owning a gun is a right. The 2nd amendment says so. The Supreme Court of the United States says so. God gave us our rights.
The founders fought a war to establish this country. The threw off a tyrannical government. And they feared that another would come to power right here in our own land. So they wrote the right to carry a gun to each citizen as an individual right.
This week a thousand people who don't value that right have asked me why I need a gun. I could give them a thousand useful reasons to have a gun that would explain the NEED for a gun. But I WON'T give them those reasons AND YOU SHOULDN'T EITHER. DON'T ever feel obligated to explain why you NEED a right.
50 years ago a woman refused to give up her seat on a bus and she didn't have to explain her NEED...she had a RIGHT to be treated like the rest.
I worship God but I don't need to explain why I NEED to....because I have that right.
I walk the streets of any town in America without fear that police will demand my papers because I have that RIGHT.
And every day...when I go to work, or church, or the movies or a mall, I carry a gun and I don't have seek permission based on NEED because I have a RIGHT as a product of God and a citizen of the United States of America.
An armed man is a Citizen.
An unarmed man is a subject.
Free Men do not ask permission to bear arms.
Lars Larson
Freeman
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: jerryab Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114475 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/20/2013 5:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
Owning a gun is a right. The 2nd amendment says so. The Supreme Court of the United States says so. God gave us our rights.

How many slave owners provided their slaves with guns? Second Amendment--remember?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114476 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/20/2013 5:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
How many slave owners provided their slaves with guns? Second Amendment--remember?

Slaves had a God-given right to own guns. Their owners had other ideas.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Beridian Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114483 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/21/2013 8:41 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 48
And every day...when I go to work, or church, or the movies or a mall, I carry a gun and I don't have seek permission based on NEED because I have a RIGHT as a product of God and a citizen of the United States of America.
An armed man is a Citizen.
An unarmed man is a subject.
Free Men do not ask permission to bear arms.




I find people like you a lot more threatening and frightening than criminals.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Vile Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114484 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/21/2013 8:48 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
"I find people like you a lot more threatening and frightening than criminals."

In America you are still allowed to be a thumb sucker.

Cheers,

Vile
NEVER SAY DIE!!!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lowstudent Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114485 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/21/2013 8:57 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 21
"I find people like you a lot more threatening and frightening than criminals."


_______________________________

Perhaps the best single statement defining the Obama voter

read it again, and weep for your nation.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TiptreeTwo Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Global Fool Motley Fool One Everlasting Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114486 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/21/2013 9:20 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
jerryab,

How many slave owners provided their slaves with guns? Second Amendment--remember?


Why, none of them. That is what tyrants do... keep the tools of violence to themselves in order to have absolute control over their subjects. Tyrants are not the ones who want to uphold the rights in the constitution -- the want to subvert them. And there is no better example of a tyrant than a slave-owner; they just operate on a micro-scale. Now, multiply that micro-tyrant by whatever factor is required to reach nation-wide power and perhaps you can see what is going on.

Or, perhaps not. Nothing in your posting history would indicate even a glimmer of understanding.

BTW, for those of you who know about such things, I found a Sig-Sauer Mosquito for $369 yesterday. Anybody own one of those? I shoots 22LR ammunition, so it should be cheap to take out plinking. Plus, it feels very balanced in the hand. While I would prefer a full-sized 9mm, this might be a good one to start with. Any comments?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114488 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/21/2013 9:39 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
How many slave owners provided their slaves with guns? Second Amendment--remember?

Why, none of them. That is what tyrants do...


So the Founders were themselves tyrants.

That leaves only three possibilities: (1) they were racists who didn't consider blacks to be human, (2) they were huge hypocrites or (3) they didn't really intend the Second Amendment to be used as a bulwark against that kind of tyranny. Of course it could be combination of those three.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jerryab Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114492 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/21/2013 10:14 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Nothing in your posting history would indicate even a glimmer of understanding.

I see nothing in your posting history indicating any comprehension of the meaning of the various portions of the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence or any other relevant US document.

Now, you need to explain to the world why am I (and every other US citizen) *not* allowed to acquire and own a suitcase nuke for "self defense"?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: skorthos Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114493 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/21/2013 10:15 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
colbyhouse: This week a thousand people who don't value that right have asked me why I need a gun. I could give them a thousand useful reasons to have a gun that would explain the NEED for a gun. But I WON'T give them those reasons AND YOU SHOULDN'T EITHER. DON'T ever feel obligated to explain why you NEED a right.
50 years ago a woman refused to give up her seat on a bus and she didn't have to explain her NEED...she had a RIGHT to be treated like the rest.
I worship God but I don't need to explain why I NEED to....because I have that right.
I walk the streets of any town in America without fear that police will demand my papers because I have that RIGHT.
And every day...when I go to work, or church, or the movies or a mall, I carry a gun and I don't have seek permission based on NEED because I have a RIGHT as a product of God and a citizen of the United States of America.


Well, at last!

A thoughtful, reasonable explanation from an articulate, religious gun owner.

The reference to Rosa Parks cleared up a lot of stuff for me.

And the Second Amendment...why hasn't anyone brought that up before?

And, God. Why even mention Rosa Parks or the Second Amendment when you have God as an argument?

Thank you for the clarity.

skorthos

PS: Could you cross post your message to Political Asylum? A lot of people over there are really confused about this whole gun ownership thing and you could satisfy their curiosity. I am afraid that you might just be (ahem) "preaching to the choir" over here on the Conservative Fools board.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: JoshRandall Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114494 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/21/2013 10:16 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 33
"I find people like you a lot more threatening and frightening than criminals."

Backatcha! We leave people alone to live their lives as they see fit as long as it doesn't violate other people's rights. On the other hand, you liberal tyrants on the left want to force other people (through the coercive power of government) to agree with you as to how they should live their lives. There is nothing more frightening to free people than people who think like you. History is replete with examples of the devastation people like you have brought to humanity and once in awhile, people stand up to bullies and tyrants and fight to be free. We already defeated your kind in this country through blood being shed but you keep coming back attempting to reclaim your tyrannical ways. That's why we must be eternally vigilant to protect our freedom and God-given rights and be willing to fight to the death if necessary to defeat tyrants who think like you.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114495 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/21/2013 10:37 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Now, you need to explain to the world why am I (and every other US citizen) *not* allowed to acquire and own a suitcase nuke for "self defense"?

No need to use such a ridiculous example.

And you're slightly misunderstanding the argument. It's not that the Second just protects the right to bear arms in self defense, like if your house is being robbed or attacked by zombies. It's that it recognizes a "God-given" right to raise arms against a tyrannical government -- which is just a polite way of saying that everyone has a God-given right to shoot cops and soldiers if they think their government is tyrannical. That's the "right" anti-gun control people are afraid of losing.

So instead of a suitcase nuke, you can make the same argument asking about land mines, or RPGs, weapons more suitable for armed insurrection.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114497 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/21/2013 10:44 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5

I find people like you a lot more threatening and frightening than criminals.


That's okay. It's not like we respect your opinion anyway.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114499 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/21/2013 10:54 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
On the other hand, you liberal tyrants on the left want to force other people (through the coercive power of government) to agree with you as to how they should live their lives.

Two words: gay marriage.

Two more: drug laws. Though to be fair, many libs favor those too.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: iamski Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114500 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/21/2013 10:58 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Why, none of them. That is what tyrants do...

Agreed 100%

How many slave owners provided their slaves with guns? Second Amendment--remember?

But then liberals see the exercise or rights as meaning someone else has to provide them. Seems to me that the use of guns is what ultimately free the slaves.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114502 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/21/2013 11:03 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Seems to me that the use of guns is what ultimately free the slaves.

Sure, but in the hands of Union soldiers, not an armed citizenry or even a militia. No one is questioning whether soldiers should be armed.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Colovion Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114504 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/21/2013 11:46 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Two words: gay marriage.

Two more: drug laws. Though to be fair, many libs favor those too.


I'm perfectly willing to have the federal government have no role in either of those what-so-ever.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114507 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/21/2013 11:51 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I'm perfectly willing to have the federal government have no role in either of those what-so-ever.

What about state governments?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Colovion Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114508 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/21/2013 12:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Sure, but in the hands of Union soldiers, not an armed citizenry or even a militia. No one is questioning whether soldiers should be armed.

There is an intersting wrinkle in that though. The Freedmans Bureau Act explicitely mentioned an individual right to keep and bear arms. The expiration of that law was followed up by the Fourteenth Amendment, in which northern Senators argued that it was needed to protect the individual right to keep and bear arms of the freed slaves in order for them to defend themselves against the state militias in the southern states which were going around disarming them and/or killing them. What good is freedom if you can't defend it, and how could the freed slaves have defended it if they were disarmed?

Of course we know what happened: SCOTUS created the incorporation sham whereby the Bill of Rights had to be incorporated against the states via the Fourteent Amendment via their say-so, which allowed the southern states to pass unconstitutional Jim Crowe laws, the most disgusting of which stripped minorities of their right to keep and bear arms (not to belittle the others, but being able to drink from the same drinking fountain pales in comparison to being able to shoot the KKK if they came to lynch you and your family.) So despite the clearly stated intentions of those who drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to protect the individual rights of the freed slaves to keep and bear arms that right wasn't recognized until the McDonald decision was handed down.

We're still fighting tyranny to this very day. There are plenty of gun control laws that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, there are several cases going through courts right now arguing against those laws. Bit by bit those laws are being chipped away. It may take decades to eliminate all of them.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Colovion Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114510 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/21/2013 12:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
What about state governments?

That's where the arguments should be decided. If the good people of Michigan want gay marriage to be legal then they can elect people who will vote that way. Same with Ohio, New York, etc. It's states that issue marriage licenses, not the feds.

Same with drugs, and I'd throw in the drinking age too while we're at it. Let states decide these things without federal intervention. If they legalized pot in Michigan tomorrow my job would become a hell of a lot easier. I'd still kick my son's keister if I ever caught him touching the stuff (our house isn't a democracy, it's a dictatorship and I'm the benevolent dictator) but my job is to teach him not to do it and why.

Really we shouldn't care too much about who the President is... they should have so little power over our lives that what they happen to think should be mostly irrelevant. Ceding too much power to the feds has lead to a situation where it really IS important because suddenly we have to care what they think about gay marriage (if someone cares deeply about it, I don't) and the like. I'd LOVE IT if we didn't have to care about whether or not the Pres is a gun grabber, but as it stands we have to care about it (again, if someone cares about that issue, which I do of course).

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114512 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/21/2013 1:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
This week a thousand people who don't value that right have asked me why I need a gun.

Busy week. 1000 people? One at a time?

God gave us our rights.


I could have sworn it was the Constitution gave me my rights, and the amendments improve the constitution as the world changes.

I hope God doesn't mind that we make a few amendments to the rights he gave us.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tgrmn Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114513 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/21/2013 1:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
When driving past the Sam Houston Statue south of Huntsville, Joshua is interred right next to Sam Houston. Darn Racist Redneck Texans!

"jeeryab,
How many slave owners provided their slaves with guns? Second Amendment--remember?...'

http://www.texascooppower.com/texas-stories/history/the-othe...

"Joshua Houston, a slave in the Sam Houston household, earned his own place in Texas history"

By Martha Deeringer Issue: January 2013
Courtesy Sam Houston Memorial Museum

"Joshua Houston Texas history books tell of Sam Houston—military leader, frontier statesman, president of the Republic of Texas, governor of Texas—and point out that he owned slaves, 12 of them, and spoke in support of slavery to protect the interests of the South.

But in principle he opposed the idea of one man owning another and even broke a law on its behalf. One slave in particular thrived under Houston’s tutelage and eventually earned his own place in Texas history.

When Sam Houston married his third wife, Margaret Moffette Lea, in 1840, she brought along two servants inherited from her father: Eliza, Margaret’s personal servant, and Joshua, a strapping lad believed to be 18. Already an expert horseman and experienced blacksmith when he arrived in Galveston with the newlyweds, he would serve them faithfully for more than 20 years.

Joshua’s quick mind made him an important member of the household, and he often traveled with Houston while he served as president of the Republic of Texas. Sam and Margaret taught Joshua and the other house servants to read and loaned them books, although teaching slaves to read was illegal in Texas, according to Patricia Smith Prather and Jane Clements Monday in From Slave to Statesman (University of North Texas Press, 1995). Joshua was so good with figures that Houston asked him to keep track of expenses as they traveled.

Joshua served the family as blacksmith, wheelwright, carpenter, driver and trusted companion. Houston once asked him to design and build a law office, separate from the rest of the house, at Houston’s Raven Hill Plantation on the upper San Jacinto River. Houston also encouraged Margaret to hire out the servants when they weren’t needed at home and to allow Joshua to keep the extra money he earned. Joshua’s skills made him a valued worker, especially as stagecoach driver. Sometime before 1848, Joshua began a family with a slave named Anneliza.

January 2013

This appeared in the January 2013 issue Rumors of war between the states circulated in 1859, and Joshua was aware of the general’s increasingly unpopular opposition to the spread of slavery. Houston’s pleas against secession fell on deaf ears, and Texas joined the Confederacy. Houston was removed from office in March 1861 after refusing to take an oath of allegiance to the Confederate States of America.

By 1862 the general’s health started to deteriorate. That fall, he set an example for fellow Texans once again. Dressed in his best suit and leaning on the hickory walking stick that Joshua had carved for him, he gathered his 12 servants and read Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation from the porch of his rented house in Huntsville. Then he told them that they were free. If they chose to stay and work for him, he promised to pay them as long as he could. Most, including Joshua, elected to stay.

On July 26, 1863, Sam Houston died. Joshua, who had taken his master’s last name, was away driving a stagecoach and by the time he returned, Margaret and her eight children had moved to Independence. The family was destitute and could not pay the rent on the Huntsville house.

Joshua made the 60-mile trip to Independence by mule to deliver his condolences. He brought $2,000—his life’s savings—and he explained that he wanted Margaret to have it. Overcome by emotion, she refused the offer. “I want you to take your money and do just what General Houston would want you to do with it if he were here, and that is to give your boys and girls a good education,” she is quoted as saying in From Slave to Statesman.

Thus began Joshua Houston’s long personal journey from slavery to leadership among freedmen, buying land in Huntsville and building a two-story house and a blacksmith shop. He served twice as city alderman and twice as Walker County commissioner. He was one of the founders of Bishop Ward Normal and Collegiate Institute in Huntsville.

Joshua Houston witnessed eight of the most turbulent decades in Texas history. Like his beloved master, he had a vision for his people, leading them beyond slavery to a new place in society. He died in 1902, probably at the age of 79, and is buried beside his third wife in Oakwood Cemetery in Huntsville, just a few yards from the grave of his friend, Sam Houston. Nearby stands an historical marker honoring the humble man born into slavery who became a civic leader and “a devoted supporter of education for African-Americans.”"

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114514 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/21/2013 1:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
What about state governments?

That's where the arguments should be decided.


Once upon a time I would have agreed with that. Populations were quite isolated. Most people lived their entire lives in one place. Modern travel technology did away with that.

Plus, the advent of instant commerce across all state boundaries, for all practical purposes, has eliminated state boundaries.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jerryab Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114515 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/21/2013 2:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
No need to use such a ridiculous example.

True, but that is beside the point--which is the fact access to real weapons is very highly restricted--and the public is limited what are merely toys compared to the real thing. But the point remains: conservatives do not others to have what could hurt conservatives. But if conservatives were the only ones allowed to have those weapons, then that would be ok with them.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Colovion Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114517 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/21/2013 2:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I could have sworn it was the Constitution gave me my rights,

Absolutely not. You couldn't be more wrong. The Constitution recognizes a pre-existing right to keep and bear arms, it does NOT confer that right upon us.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Vile Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114518 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/21/2013 2:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"In America you are still allowed to be a thumb sucker.

And a ¢o¢ksucker, apparently."


You didn't get arrested last night?

Cheers,

Vile
NEVER SAY DIE!!!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JoshRandall Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114519 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/21/2013 2:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 19
And a ¢o¢ksucker, apparently."

Notice a few things about this:

1. It hasn't been removed because conservatives rarely, if ever go crying to mommy.

2. It probably won't get removed because TMF has a double standard. But it may get removed only if and when they read my statement so as to appear objective and fair in whose post they choose to remove for violtating their "standards."

3. This is what a liberal does when they lose an argument or are offended by the truth or a funny comment. They get vulgar.

4. That's why it's best to make them greylings.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: warrl Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114520 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/21/2013 2:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 17
I could have sworn it was the Constitution gave me my rights

Rights in the Constitution - every use of the word "right":

Article 1 section 8 (excerpt): To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

One could argue whether this is a grant of a right or a pre-existing right, mainly based on the question of whether a pre-existing right would be for "limited Times".

However, as one has a perfect right to create something new and *never reveal it to anyone*, thus securing it to oneself indefinitely, I'd have to go with recognition of an existing right and a contractual exchange of modifications to that right: you may reveal your creation to the betterment of mankind while retaining your exclusive right to that creation, and (potentially) profit thereby, in exchange for accepting a time limit on your exclusive right.

That is the ONLY use of the word "right" in the original unamended constitution.

Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Does not grant a right to free exercise of religion, just bars Congress from prohibiting it. Does not grant freedom of speech or of the press, just bars Congress from abridging it. Does not grant a right to peacably assemble and petition, just bars Congress from infringing on that right.

All those rights are presumed to already exist.

Amendment 2: A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Does not grant a right to keep and bear arms, merely bars the infringement of that right. The right is presumed to already exist.

Amendment 4: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Again, prohibits the violation of a right that is presumed to exist.

Amendment 6: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of
Counsel for his defence.


This one arguably grants rights. Notice that in almost every particular it involves *compelling other people to act in certain ways* - not merely refrain from acting in ways that would violate a right, but to perform specific acts (serve as jurors, appear as witnesses, etc) to enable that right.

Amendment 7: In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Like the 6th Amendment, the 7th includes a right to compel others to act in certain ways - serve on a jury. However, the 7th clearly presumes an existing right, and protects that pre-existing right.

Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Clearly this is meaningless unless other, unidentified rights are presumed to pre-exist. There's a long-standing rule in courts that if an interpretation of a particular clause in a law would make that clause have no effect whatsoever, that interpretation is strongly dis-favored. Therefore, as a matter of law, there ARE other pre-existing rights.

Amendment 12 (excerpt): And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

Irrelevant to discussion of individual rights.

Amendment 14 (excerpt): But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

The right to vote is presumed to exist, not granted, by this amendment. Of course, there is no right to vote if there is not an election. And there's a fair amount of discussion of voting earlier in the Constitution - it just doesn't happen to use the word "right". One could argue that the right to vote is a right granted to the people by the government, in exchange for the people granting the government the right to govern. But even if one accepts that argument, by the time of this amendment it *was* a pre-existing right.

Amendment 15 (excerpt): 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.


Again the right to vote is presumed to already exist.

Amendment 19 (excerpt): The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.


This one is really interesting. It's commonly said to "give women the vote". In its own terms it asserts that both sexes HAD the right to vote ALL ALONG, but that pre-existing right was denied or abridged for some people on the basis of sex.

It did NOT "give women the vote". Instead, it barred "taking the vote away from women". The law against auto theft does not give you a car, it bars other people from taking your car away from you. Same thing.

Amendment 21 (excerpt): 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

Again irrelevant to a discussion of individual rights.

Amendment 24 (excerpt): 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Again a presumed, pre-existing right to vote.

Amendment 26 (excerpt): 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Another amendment enlarging the scope of Constitutional protection of a pre-existing right. We still do not know the full scope of who has the pre-existing right, merely the scope of Constitutional protection of that right: citizens at least 18 years of age regardless of sex, race, color, previous condition of servitude, or willingness/ability to pay a tax. One could assert (I neither make nor deny this argument) that two-year-old illegal aliens have the pre-existing right to vote but the Constitution allows the infringement of that right.

------------------------------------------------------

That's all folks.

The only arguably-granted rights are the right to vote and certain rights to compel other people to take specific actions.

Other than that, it is assumed that rights are previously existing things. And the government is barred from violating, denying, or restricting certain of these previously-existing rights.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114521 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/21/2013 2:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
What about state governments?
---
That's where the arguments should be decided.


Not sure I understand. Are you saying that state gun control laws are okay?


Really we shouldn't care too much about who the President is...

I agree with you here. I've often railed against the "imperial presidency," regardless of which party is in power. I sometimes describe myself politically as a devolutionist. I believe the more localized the government the better. In my opinion, the U.S. would be better off as a confederation of states, more like the E.U (in structure, anyway.) That way if Texas wants this and New York wants that, great. Their citizens can each have their own way. As a side note, the inaugural looks to me like a coronation and is a bit nauseating for that reason.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114524 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/21/2013 3:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Plus, the advent of instant commerce across all state boundaries, for all practical purposes, has eliminated state boundaries.

U.S. states are anachronistic political artifacts. With a few notable exceptions, like Alaska and Hawaii, borders that once made geographic or political sense don't anymore. But they're here to stay. There's a lot of political investment in keeping things the way they are.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Wradical Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114526 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/21/2013 3:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I believe the more localized the government the better. In my opinion, the U.S. would be better off as a confederation of states, more like the E.U (in structure, anyway.) That way if Texas wants this and New York wants that, great. Their citizens can each have their own way.
============================
They tried that first, remember? From revolutionary times through 1787 they operated under the Articles of Confederation. And by then they realized it wasn't going to work too well for things like interstate commerce and foreign affairs.

And in many ways the Constitution was an incremental step, at first. But today, with so much of what we do being interstate and international commerce, so many more laws that impact ordinary citizens are federal in origin. And that IS what the Constitution calls for.

Bill

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ehore Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114527 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/21/2013 3:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Not sure I understand. Are you saying that state gun control laws are okay?

Here in Missouri, the State House and Senate are currently in the process of passing bills that declare that gun control is not okay by either the fed or the state! The Republicans hold a strong majority in Missouri, enough to override a veto by the Governor, making passage of the law quite likely. Here is the summary of the House version of the bill, HB170:

"This bill specifies that it is unlawful for any officer or employee
of the state, any political subdivision, or any licensed federal
firearms dealer to enforce or attempt to enforce any federal act,
law, statute, rule, or regulation relating to a personal firearm,
firearm accessory, or ammunition that is owned or manufactured
commercially or privately in the state and that remains exclusively
within the boundaries of the state. Any federal official, agent,
or employee who enforces or attempts to enforce any federal act,
order, law, statute, rule, or regulation pertaining to these types
of firearms, accessories, or ammunition will be guilty of a class D
felony. Any person in violation of any federal law relating to the
manufacture, sale, transfer, or possession of a firearm, firearm
accessory, or ammunition owned or manufactured and retained
exclusively within the boundaries of the state may request the
Attorney General to defend him or her for the violation.
The bill specifies that any federal law, rule, regulation, or order
created or effective on or after January 1, 2013, is unenforceable
in the state if it attempts to ban or restrict ownership of a
semi-automatic firearm or any magazine of a firearm or requires any
firearm, magazine, or other firearm accessory to be registered in
any manner."

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114528 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/21/2013 3:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 16
It hasn't been removed because conservatives rarely, if ever go crying to mommy.

Are you kidding?

I had two posts removed last week, one in which I asked (you?) to "Try not to be a disruptive, rec-whoring troll" and another in which I said someone's name-calling reminded me of "my fifth grade playground."

And I got suspended for a week recently for referring to Drebbin as "Stopped Clock."

At risk of again offending someone's tender sensibilities, here's the whole post:

Umm... I think Stopped Clock completed his MBA decades ago.

That barely registers on the Insult-o-meter.

I get called all sorts of names here and if I reply with even a jokey comeback, it often gets FA'd. I'm not complaining, but your notions that folks here don't go "crying to Mommy" all the time and that the Fool is somehow biased are dead wrong.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Colovion Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114529 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/21/2013 3:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Not sure I understand. Are you saying that state gun control laws are okay?

Any and all state gun control laws were ok until the Second Amendment was incorporated in the McDonald case. Now that it is incorporated states are bound by it. No state can ban people from having handguns in their homes for self-defense.

Of course this raises an interesting wrinkle... are residence hall rooms homes? Those people sign leases and reside there so I'd argue they are. Yet that is one of the places where firearms are explicitely prohibited per state law in Michigan. Wonder how long before some aspiring student decides to sue using McDonald as the basis for their lawsuit... I don't see any way they can lose given that precedent.

That certain rights belong to you and no government (not even state governments) can take them away doesn't change the fact that most of these other arguments should be state-level arguments, not federal ones. There were, of course, many libertarians who were against trying to get the Second Amendment incorporated because it does indeed take away the state's power to set any gun control laws they want. But, again, I'm not a libertarian for a reason. Certain things shouldn't even be under the power of states. NOBODY should be able to take away certain rights.

/And no, I don't see gay marriage as an inherent right. I can't justify it as one. Cohabitation, sure, but not marriage.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114530 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/21/2013 3:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
This message has been marked in your Favorites for later reply.

...because it was that awesome. It never ceases to amaze me that the left has just no idea what America is about.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114531 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/21/2013 3:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
They tried that first, remember? From revolutionary times through 1787 they operated under the Articles of Confederation. And by then they realized it wasn't going to work too well for things like interstate commerce and foreign affairs.

Yeah, but many of the reasons it didn't work then are reasons in favor of it now. We now have a huge, centrally-controlled military and banking system, for example. What I'm saying is that if Texas wants its schools to teach that Noah rode dinosaurs, let them. If New York wants to recognize gay marriages, good for them. I'd go further and allow cities and towns more sovereignty. If the people of Portland want to legalize pot, why should it be the Federal government's business?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114534 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/21/2013 3:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Not sure I understand. Are you saying that state gun control laws are okay?

Any and all state gun control laws were ok until the Second Amendment was incorporated in the McDonald case...


That's is all great as a matter of constitutional law. But I'm not talking about "okay" as in legal. I'm talking about okay in principle. We're talking about "God-given rights" not the courts' interpretation of laws.

The post to which I was replying mentioned "the coercive power of government" in reference to "tyranny." Does it make any practical or theoretical difference whether the tyrannical or coercive government in question is a nation, state or municipality?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JoshRandall Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114536 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/21/2013 3:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Here in Missouri, the State House and Senate are currently in the process of passing bills that declare that gun control is not okay by either the fed or the state! The Republicans hold a strong majority in Missouri, enough to override a veto by the Governor, making passage of the law quite likely. Here is the summary of the House version of the bill, HB170:

Common sense legislation protecting the right to bear arms and to keep the federal busibodies and gun control nuts and reactionaries out of state business.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lowstudent Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114537 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/21/2013 4:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Notice a few things about this:

1. It hasn't been removed because conservatives rarely, if ever go crying to mommy.
2. It probably won't get removed because TMF has a double standard. But it may get removed only if and when they read my statement so as to appear objective and fair in whose post they choose to remove for violtating their "standards."
3. This is what a liberal does when they lose an argument or are offended by the truth or a funny comment. They get vulgar.
4. That's why it's best to make them greylings.
_________________________

I have to say, I do not care if someone is brusque or show a lack of decorum.
I could not care less if the person loses arguments without grace.

I tend to grey them, because they are just uninteresting, dishonest and they all have the same argument and tend not even to attempt to be entertaining, so if you leave one ungrey you get the universe of lib opinion -- and when I want that I go to PA. I do occasionally read my responses and verify that they have nothing new to say -- they have not for a while.

I have never gotten why someone would nitpick an argument to take out of context parts and try to persuade you, that you are wrong based on what you did not say. That always seemed a strange mix of ill and stupid and it is the regular mix of our visitors.

I am not sure why anyone bothers with them, but to each their own. I enjoy from time to time going to PA and acting liberal to entertain them by knee jerking and skimming the top of their collectivist idiocy, but why engage them where folks do not want them and give them their sick thrills?

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: lowstudent Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114538 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/21/2013 5:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
And in many ways the Constitution was an incremental step, at first. But today, with so much of what we do being interstate and international commerce, so many more laws that impact ordinary citizens are federal in origin. And that IS what the Constitution calls for.
__________________________________

That is just dumb as dirt. That is clearly not what the Constitution calls for. The document is written OBVIOUSLY from it negatives as opposed to reinforcements of government reach to limit government.

What is ALLOWS is nothing like what it calls for, and your statement is a rather straightforward lie.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: iamski Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114544 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/21/2013 7:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Once upon a time I would have agreed with that.

Has the Constitution changed since that "once upon a time" wrt the powers left to the states and the people?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CairnDad Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114545 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/21/2013 8:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I find people like you a lot more threatening and frightening than criminals.

Now who's a bedwetter?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: brewer12345 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114546 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/21/2013 9:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Of course this raises an interesting wrinkle... are residence hall rooms homes? Those people sign leases and reside there so I'd argue they are. Yet that is one of the places where firearms are explicitely prohibited per state law in Michigan. Wonder how long before some aspiring student decides to sue using McDonald as the basis for their lawsuit... I don't see any way they can lose given that precedent.

****************************

State laws can be even more interesting. Colorado law apparently considers your personal vehicle as an extension of your home. Partially as a result, it is legal within the state to keep a loaded handgun in your vehicle without a concealed carry permit so long as you aren't otherwise prohibited from having a firearm (convicted felon, etc.) and you keep it in the glove compartment. Why it has to be in the glove compartment I could not tell you, but it is notable that a handgun is allowed, but any long guns must be cased and unloaded in your vehicle.

I bet other states have other permutations of this sort of thing.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: totolapse1 Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114548 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/21/2013 9:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
could have sworn it was the Constitution gave me my rights,

Colovion: Absolutely not. You couldn't be more wrong. The Constitution recognizes a pre-existing right to keep and bear arms, it does NOT confer that right upon us.

Colovion, I like how you have read some books and think in this area. In a nutshell - at the time of the writing of the Constitution we spoke of natural rights. This was part of the Age of Reason and natural rights of men were in contrast to the God given rights of Kings that had gone on previously. So this was apart of an evolution in thought.

The term natural rights is a fiction that we made up out of thin air. I will leave your God given rights to you and how you worship, but they are not in the Constitution. If you want to think the constitution was divinely inspired, there is no quarrel with that view. But- there are no natural rights. There are no rights that spring from nature.

Our rights come from a social compact called the Constitution which was voted on and gave us these rights along with the first 10 amendments passed at the first Congress.

Prior to that we had the rights of the confederation, states rights, and almost every state had a bill of rights. We tended to think of our rights as listed because they were listed as the rights of Englishman in the charters of the colonies.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JoshRandall Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114549 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/21/2013 10:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I find people like you a lot more threatening and frightening than criminals.

If you and your family were sitting in the front row next to the aisle near an emergency door in a movie theatre sitting next to the poster who you think is frightening and threatening and an armed nutcase came in through the back door and aimed at your family member first, who would you feel more threatened by, the poster (who would likely save your sorry butt) or the madman?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jwiest Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114550 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/21/2013 11:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
It probably won't get removed because TMF has a double standard. But it may get removed only if and when they read my statement so as to appear objective and fair in whose post they choose to remove for violtating their "standards."

I love how you guys invent cause and effect to justify your paranoia and victimization.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ehore Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114551 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/22/2013 12:02 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
I find people like you a lot more threatening and frightening than criminals.

If we ever happened to come upon each other, as long as you did not threaten my life, you would never know that I had a firearm on my person! I don't drink or take mood altering drug that might impair my thinking. I have had firearm training, an extensive background check and I practice regularly. I have no intention of threatening or frightening anyone!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tgrmn Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114554 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/22/2013 5:57 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
"...Our rights come from a social compact called the Constitution which was voted on and gave us these rights along with the first 10 amendments passed at the first Congress.

Prior to that we had the rights of the confederation, states rights, and almost every state had a bill of rights. We tended to think of our rights as listed because they were listed as the rights of Englishman in the charters of the colonies. ..."
..........................................

The Constitution -> recognised <- the pre=existing Rights of States and most importantly, Citizens.

"Not Reserved"

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Colovion Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114558 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/22/2013 8:16 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The term natural rights is a fiction that we made up out of thin air. I will leave your God given rights to you and how you worship, but they are not in the Constitution. If you want to think the constitution was divinely inspired, there is no quarrel with that view. But- there are no natural rights. There are no rights that spring from nature.

I believe it's just as dangerous to say that rights are "God-given" as to say those rights are conferred upon us by the Constitution. It's too easy to have atheists, members of other religions, etc. say the rights don't exist then because there's no God or it's a false God.

I believe that the right to keep and bear arms does pre-exist the Constitution, in that it has been part of Western Civilization since the dawn of Western Civilization (so it predates the Consitution by couple thousands years at least). The ideal was well established when Leonidas I uttered that famous retort "Molon Labe" to the Persians at Thermopylae, so it is little wonder that Aristotle spoke of it over a century later.

If someone wants to believe that this is a God-given right I won't tell them not to, as long as they acknowledge that it is an inherent right I don't particularly care what their rationale for it is. I base it on more of a philosophical viewpoint based upon my belief that Western Civilization is indeed the most civilized, fair and just one (in other words, other civilizations are simply wrong) and ergo the rights of Western Civ are universal. Others are free to disagree... but they're wrong ;-)

I suppose in a way that is no different than those who have a religious basis for their belief in the right, but this justification is the one that "speaks" to my rational side I suppose. I've never found an argument that sways me from it (and, of course, I've seen many such arguments).

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: iamski Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114559 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/22/2013 8:27 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
There are no rights that spring from nature.

Such as the "right" to free birth control, abortion, free medical care, education, house etc.....Is this what you are referring to or is it just the right to keep and bear arms that fit your definition?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JoshRandall Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114560 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/22/2013 8:36 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
There are no rights that spring from nature.

Such as the "right" to free birth control, abortion, free medical care, education, house etc.....Is this what you are referring to or is it just the right to keep and bear arms that fit your definition?


Oops, someone had a total mental lapse. "B-b-but natural rights exist when they obligate others to pay for the exercise of such rights."

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tgrmn Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114576 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/22/2013 11:10 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"Such as the "right" to free birth control, abortion, free medical care, education, house etc.....Is this what you are referring to or is it just the right to keep and bear arms that fit your definition?"



Food(EBT Cards), Cell Phones, Child Care/Head Start/Stop....

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lowstudent Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114579 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/22/2013 11:51 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"Such as the "right" to free birth control, abortion, free medical care, education, house etc.....Is this what you are referring to or is it just the right to keep and bear arms that fit your definition?"


___________________________________

Why is the right to bear arms considered a natural right?

Why are the other looked at askance?

Can you answer that or are you as morally bankrupt as you appear?

Can you see that the arms argument is simply a means of defense -- from all threats and is not given at anyone else's expense?

Do you not believe there is a natural right to defend yourself a right above who is governing you? That is what natural rights is all about -- how did folks who believed in differing Gods and in no God at all agree on God given rights? It was easy, they simply decided they were not a group of Putzes and used God as a concept -- a way of stating above before and with or without government people must have these rights for a meaningful interaction and a functional society.

The folks who do not believe that rights exist which are above what a government can screw with are dangerous and deluded. The folks who believe you can give someone the right to what is someone else's are merely wrong and have obviously not thought it through or believe it will be different this time, a rather silly proposition.

Liberals always fall into the same absurd swamp of intellectual nothingness. It has not happened yet so the obvious collapse never will. How absurd, You said smoking would cause cancer, I smoked for years HAH, you are obviously a know nothing -- that is what they live, but they deny it because they they believe that smoking will cause cancer. They believe it therefore is a silly analogy. putzes one and all.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: iamski Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114581 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/22/2013 12:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Lowstudent- are you as morally bankrupt as you appear?

I don't consider myself morally bankrupt. I'm sorry it appears that way to you.

I was just responding to an individual who stated that rights only come from the constitution.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lowstudent Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114583 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/22/2013 12:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Recommendations: 0

Lowstudent- are you as morally bankrupt as you appear?

I don't consider myself morally bankrupt. I'm sorry it appears that way to you.
_______________________

Iamski

I often use a post as a jump off point and the comments are not intended for the poster I respond to, often it is that the poster(in this case you) responded to someone grey, and I do not want to go back and bother to ungrey.

I do not now, nor have I at any time considered you morally bankrupt nor have I found you expressing your opinions at any time to reflect positions that would make me beleive you have 'blindspots' that would be defined as such let alone a blanket statement.

Even to the poster I was aiming at, I doubt they are morally bankrupt, but do believe that there are folks who have holes in their thinking that an ideologically very evil tractor trailor could sneak through easily.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114599 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/22/2013 3:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
And that is yet another example of the difference between libs and cons. Conservatives find it threatening and frightening when criminals have guns and law-abiding citizens are restricted in their gun ownership. Libs find it threatening and frightening when someone does not share in their groupthink.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: feedmeNOWhuman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114673 of 134544
Subject: Re: Owning a gun Date: 1/23/2013 1:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Josh: Common sense legislation protecting the right to bear arms and to keep the federal busibodies and gun control nuts and reactionaries out of state business.



Apparently you missed the announcement by the Pope's spokesman. Catholics support Obama's gun control efforts.


Failure to do so means you are not Catholic.

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (57) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement