An UNALIENABLE Right

I think the guys trolling this thread understand that when it comes to Rights, NOBODY has the Right to impose on your Rights just for the luxury of feeling safe. You have an unalienable Right to the pursuit of Happiness, but there is no Dept. of Happiness to guarantee your happiness. Likewise, you have a Right to Life and owning the tools to enforce that Right in no way infringes on the people who troll these threads.

Moving beyond that, I want to challenge gun owners to rethink their positions. Many of you have heard me rail against the pee test, blood test, hair sample, spit test, credit check, MVR check, criminal records background check, Socialist Surveillance Number...ooops "Social Security Number", driver's license, National ID Card / E-Verify atmosphere society we have come to be. WHY do we think we need all of this? WHY do we feel compelled to appease the left by going along with this silliness?

Let me talk to you honestly. Having to forfeit one constitutional Right in order to exercise another is the beginning of the end for ALL constitutional Liberties. It is a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment to force people to undergo a background check in order to purchase a firearm.

"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." (Fourth Amendment)

I would challenge ALL of you to explain how, in a society that has a presumption of innocence, that all this background crap is justified PLUS the fact that you're being required to forfeit one Right for the luxury of exercising another. Where is the reasonableness of infringing on the Right?

I'm going to tell all gun owners something at this juncture. The political pendulum swings back and forth. Gun owners are always playing defense on this issue. One day, when the left gets back in control, the gun control measures will be severe. The pro-gun lobby has compromised with the left on background checks, licensing, and the prohibited persons issue. You didn't have to do it. You can learn all about your unalienable Right AND lobby for some common sense measures that would severely impact the number of people that die due to firearms. Of course, the anti-gunners only use the lives of victims as an occasional pretext, but if the pro-gun lobby took it upon themselves to become activists and reduce the numbers of gun deaths without gun control, the left would have no legitimate grounds for any gun control.

 

that's yet another claim that is intellectually bankrupt. the only lives gun control protects are the lives of violent criminals. Why do you want to make the lives of violent felons safer? is it because you think that society is unfair and those who are felons have been forced into such a lifestyle by society?

 

I'd love to see this guy make a case for such a ridiculous statement. Gun control is just that - CONTROL. Control can, in no way, shape, fashion, or form protect anybody's Right to Life.

 

gun control actually diminishes your ability to protect yourself. as I noted, the only group that is protected by gun control are violent criminals. ever wonder why so many on the left are so big on gun control? ask yourself which group is the one that features most of the apologists, enablers and supporters of criminals. As yourself which side of the political aisle felons vote for in the majority when they can vote that should answer why criminal protection acts are invariably sponsored by the same side that such criminals usually vote for

 

Well said!

As I've mentioned in passing elsewhere: the American people have been sadly spineless in their acceptance of restrictions upon their freedoms; ostensibly in the name of making us "safer". The Founders recognized - and warned us sternly - that government inevitably evolves towards authoritarianism and tyranny, and the "price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance." Benjamin Franklin spoke of how trading liberty for security would result in the loss of both Liberty AND security. If we look back of the last century, we see the parable of the frog in the boiling water writ large. The totalitarians have raised the temperature gradually, over time, and we have paddled about blithely, compromising again and again, until the water is on the verge of boiling. Well, I for one am done quietly accepting ever more draconian restrictions upon my freedoms, and I intend to start pushing back and pushing back hard against the spineless, quivering sheep that think that they can demand I surrender my rights because they find slavery preferable to freedom.

 

I didn't understand the term "as yourself" so let me make sure that everyone here understands something.

The left, aka Democrats, do everything in their power to enable criminals. If you've ever dealt with criminals, they actually love the idea of gun control. Some of them think that if you outlawed guns, they would not have gotten into trouble in the first place. They cannot take responsibility.

Then, when you enact the gun laws the left wants and criminals still get guns, the left does not and will not consider other avenues. Case in point. Adam Lanza killed 28 people, most of the being between six and seven years old.

His mother, who owned the guns went through a background check. That didn't work. She went through a waiting period. That didn't prevent the Sandy Hook massacre. Adam Lanza's mother had undergone extensive training in the use of weapons. That didn't make a difference. She even locked up her weapons. ALL of that feel good crap failed. What would have made a difference?

“Kathleen Koenig, a nurse specialist in psychiatry at Yale, gave some follow-up treatment. While seeing her, Adam tried Lexapro,..."

http://ablechild.org/2014/03/11/new...ntal-health-treatment-reveals-multiple-drugs/

There you have your answer. ALL mass murders involve people that are under the care and / or supervision of a psychologist or psychiatrist; or are on a schedule of drugs called SSRIs; or are political extremists. There are virtually no exceptions.

Adam Lanza was on a schedule of drugs called SSRIs. No amount of background checks, licensing, or anything else would alleviate the fact that those drugs are known to cause people to have suicidal and homicidal urges. IF we pursued that and worried about gun control later, we could pass laws to make feel good drugs the last option instead of the first for the medical and mental health community. And, people on drugs that dangerous need to be in protective custody: an institution, a hospital, etc. THAT is where pro-gunners could become activists.

 

You were good until you made the following false statements;

"IF we pursued that and worried about gun control later, we could pass laws to make feel good drugs the last option instead of the first for the medical and mental health community. And, people on drugs that dangerous need to be in protective custody: an institution, a hospital, etc. THAT is where pro-gunners could become activists."



Medical treatment of Mental health issues and healthcare issues in general, are best left and determined and defined by those engaged in active Study of such matters, ie the institutions of Medical studies and expertise.

While it is true many mass murders were indeed committed by patients prescribed medications known to have adverse psychological side effects, making laws against medications far outweighs any public benefit, and is better served by better oversight and research and testing.

 

Excuse me, but what other people or nations back in 1789 had superior civil rights and freedoms for their own citizens than Americans???

Now give me something to laugh at.

 

Did our unalienable rights apply to blacks and women?

 

I like to consider America as an ideal, rather than lines on a map. Yes, there have been times when we have failed - and failed badly - to live up to that ideal; but that doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to strive to achieve it.

 

When we know what drugs are causing people to murder their fellow man, it's time to act.

I did not advocate banning the drugs; just that people be treated by other means first. One time I was watching Dr. Oz on tv (in a waiting area at a doctor's office to boot.) Dr. Oz had another doctor there, explaining how easy it is to go to the doctor, utter a few key phrases and voila, you get a prescription for mind altering psychotropic drugs. That doctor urged the public to get involved and demand that SSRIs be the last option for treatment.

People needing the drugs would still be able to get them. Young kids and younger adults using the requisite terms - I'm depressed and thinking about suicide or killing myself / others are all you need to score "legal" drugs. We would see how real the need is if that individual was sent to therapy and have someone make a determination over a short period of time whether this person needs drugs or maybe to be put somewhere so that they are not a danger to society.

 

For God's sake HELL YES UNALIENABLE RIGHTS APPLIED. Now, quit trolling and leave this thread alone. Women had unalienable Rights and to an extent most unalienable Rights applied to blacks and after the 14th Amendment, all those unalienable Rights applied. Now get the Hell off this thread and leave us alone.

 

I find your anger hilarious. You are saying slaves had unalienable rights? What good did it do them? Lol

 

Many years ago, I was influenced by the original Red Dawn flick. In it, one of the officers ordered the invading force to raid all the gun and sports, confiscating Form 4473. Once I looked into that possibility, I decided that the Form 4473 was ultimately gun registration.

Every time we have compromised with the left, it's always "a start." They're never going to be satisfied be it import bans, waiting periods, prohibited persons, high capacity magazine bans, licenses, etc., etc. When I discovered the Lautenberg Amendment criminalizes many, if not most Americans from owning firearms (though they will be slow to enforce those provisions), I decided that compromise will never work. There are many ways to push back - and I'm slowly covering some of them (like putting the left on the defensive.) Personally, I have no intention of ever asking the government's permission to do something I have an unalienable Right to do.

 

This thread is not about slaves. If you want to discuss that, go to the appropriate forum and start a thread. I'll debate it with you. Son, I bet your mother would bust your a** with a leather belt if she knew you were trolling people just to get your cookies off. Don't do it here. I answered your off topic questions and asked you to respect the thread.

 

Arwe you threatening me? Because that is hilarious. This thread is about unalienable rights. Why are you afraid to talk about how THEYE DID NOT APPLY TO MOST OF THE COUNTRY when the term was created. I am talking about rights. Man you can't stand it when anyone stands up to you with an argument.

 

Its a simple question. If a right is unalienable....how can it not apply to most of the people in the country?

 

The problem the trolls have is that they harp on the past with no consideration for reality. In the past, which party was representative of racism? It was Democrats that condoned the racism. It was done by mob rule, the same ground game rules the left wants to play by today.

OTOH, over half of Georgia's violent crimes are committed within five precincts. ALL of those precincts are predominantly black. The old style Democrats used to claim that blacks were inferior... and today, they do not seem to be able to integrate into a free society. But, it was the Republicans that fought for equality - a point lost on the trolls here.

Too many people cannot delineate or differentiate between unalienable Rights, inalienable rights, government created rights, and most of all the privileges and benefits of citizenship. By passing the 14th Amendment (and it was illegally ratified, BTW) we opened the door to everybody - regardless of color, creed, sex, immigration status, religion (or lack thereof), etc. to be covered by "most" constitutional guarantees.

We do have a different problem. As we seek to return to the original intent of unalienable Rights, the courts are trying to subvert the Constitution and claim they are in charge of an area they have zero jurisdiction in. The left is all for it, thinking they are going to win via popularity votes - and yet unable to accept the fact that their side were the ones in favor of racism, and it was sustained through their majority voting. And now, they are blaming the Republicans????

 

If you want to stand up to me, do it in a PM. You want to badger me than claim I'm threatening you. What kind of chickensh!+ cowardice is that? Look, son, if you want to call me out, do it in PM and quit grandstanding. NOBODY is buying what you're doing.

 

The problem with people like you is that you can not debate with anyone that disagrees with you. You only come here to confirm your own biased belief and you get SO ANGRY if anyone dares disagree with you. All I do is present intelligent arguments ABSENT ANY PERSONAL INSULTS and you can not stand it. This is a debate forum....not your personal fan club. And the question still stands:

If a right is unalienable....how can it not apply to most of the people in the country?

 

If you stop feeding the trolls, they go away.

 

Now you want to call me a coward? If you can't take debate you came to the wrong place. We are not your grand kids where we have to agree with grandpappy because he will just get too upset if your don't. LOL

 

Point taken. Hopefully we can all ignore the mental midgetry and move forward.

 

If that is true why do you have to kee repeating it. LOL

 

You have nothing but insults and you have NO ARGUMENT