its a trust indenture. its not a reflection but establishes the boundaries for those and only those who wish to go under it. In other words joining the corporation was at one time voluntary until the abrahamson case where a crooked court stated a person can be "claimed" by the state as a subject of said state. Next the spies case where other crooked courts stated that the constitution was between the states and the feds and the bill of rights do not apply to the people. You know how crooked judges are. They would have you believe that a state can have prosterity, life, and happiness, and those rulings still stand and are being acted upon to this day. The real problem in this country is that people do not understand the law and how they have been (*)(*)(*)(*)ed by the government who controls both sides of the contract. If you want to know where the problem is it is the corruption of the courts, stealing our unlienable rights OVER THEM and replacing them roman civil privileges UNDER THEM. They are the trustees of the trust. of the United States They just established the united states as something OTHER than the people or the states. remember in the arts of con it was the "united states in congress assembled". meaning an assembly! not a federal corporation of who knows what as that established. [FONT="] [/FONT]
Instead of using it to protect rights, they used it to set up taxing boundaries under the 14th where you have no say so in the debt, and that is after all slavery. they used it to entrap us the confederates were right to fight.
Mere words without the proof, friend. If you HAVE done so, then it should be an easy matter for you to produce the proof. shhhhh......Listen........ you can hear the crickets....... Where? You're only describing YOUR OWN posts. Here, here, here, here, here, and here for six to start with. Stop with the distracting and baseless accusations. They're petty and demeaning for you when you can't back them up with proof. It's real simple. If you claim that something was "debunked" then show where and how. If you claim that somebody was "stupid", or that they were responding in a certain manner, then have the honor to post the examples showing this. It's really not a difficult concept to grasp. Most adults get it. Do you?
I'm sorry, friend. No offense, but anytime anyone starts talking about "duty" and "guns" in the same sentence, I can almost hear the trombones. This only furthers to muddy the waters. You had claimed: "It's isn't fear the inspires a man to bear arms, but duty. It's the right and duty of every American to know how to protect themselves" Once again, as I already pointed out, you have confused country with family as to "duty". When talking about constitutional rights, self defense is a right, not a duty. On the other hand, it could be argued that it is a "duty" to protect our country.
Care to elaborate? Accusations are easy, while actually addressing ones posts can be more difficult. I notice that you chose the former, but there IS still time to logically address the argument in my previous post.
A shallow and ironic response from someone who didn't (couldn't?) respond to my post that addresses this very topic with you. You have lost what little respect I had left for you. Pity.
If you had any respect to begin with you would have acted respectfully. Let the PF record show......I have lost all of dancts respect......what a pity.
So many no sequiturs it's difficult to know where to start!. Socialism is the economic system whereby most capital is publicly owned. This is not the case in Canada where private industry flourishes, so your "socialist" Canada is drivel. As for the FF wanting "equalizers" this is also rubbish. A gun equalizes someone who has earned and succeeded with a thief, if the thief has a gun. Equalizing this is directly against the meritocracy that the FF wanted to create. You see the US military as shrill and uneducated - may be, but I have confidence that for at least the time they are in the military they are governed by Westpoint trained Jeffersonian officers who understand that the army serves the people and not the other way around. These values, not guns, protect the USA from tyranny. As to protecting my family and property, I and EVERYONE I KNOW has managed to protect their family and property without a gun because we live in the kind of gun free societies where this type of defence is not necessary. As to grabbing them from you, I have never made such a proposal. To "ungun" a society is a bit like becoming a virgin again - I don't know how you do it, so I make no such proposals to you Americans except that you think about contraception a little more. What I am challenging here is the ludicrous notion that without a gun I am nothing more than a slave. It is a groundless, irrational, xenophobic and paranoid concept, that is all. It is interesting to see some on here who can barely articulate themselves (not you) struggle to get the bestial moans in their heads down on paper. America is founded on universal principles, that are as good for me as a foreigner as they are to you, according to the FF. There was never any sense from the FF that Americans could have one type of freedom and other another. Freedom is freedom, everywhere. So when people call me a slave, based on this nonsense, I will highlight how un-american this drivel is. And those who don't like it can grunt as much as they will.
Did I say that the US had more private gun ownership than any other country? No, I said that the USA had a strong gun culture. Was this the post that I missed: How do I respond to that windy rubbish? Your waffle about "low content posts" has produced something as low content as you could get. Sorry, are you debating here? How does this show that I am a slave, the subject of this thead, because I don't own a gun? I haven't challenged your preference to be armed or your responsibility. This is more windy rubbish, isn't it? How was I supposed to respond to this? By saying that you were an irresponsible redneck or something? That is not my point. You're arguing with something I never said. I didn't say there was a direct correlation (I think there is high gun ownership in parts of Canada as well where there is less crime). It's "gun culture" I challenge. No one in Switzerland (where I have been many times and have discussed this subject with Swiss people) owns a gun to defend themselves against the government. When you go to a Swiss person's house they don't show you their guns (they are usually locked away in the attic anyway). Swiss people don't carry guns, as a general rule. The reason for high gun ownership is that Switzerland actually has something far closer to the vision of the FF than America has: it has a citizens militia where each citizen does military service, with regular refreshers, and citizens acquires guns that way. The Swiss military does not really get involved in any foreign entanglements at all. Guns are there to defend the country against a foreign invasion and to make an occupation difficult. This is a historical legacy. I think if there was really a danger of a foreign invasion overwhelming a country's army, every country's government would be right to distribute guns to its citizens, as happens in Switzerland. This is clearly not applicable to most democratic countries, nor, any longer, to Switzerland, which is why all the guns are in the attic. Switzerland also has a corrupt banking system, built on funny money from criminals and gangsters all over the world, which sustains a prosperity far higher than the USA, with the comensurate reduction in crime that makes guns unnecessary for crime prevention. Did you make any other point there in your "high content post" apart from the one about Switzerland? You also posted this: Conditions where the USA had been governed by a monarchy which had denied the representatives of the people the right to determine the level of taxation that was levied on the people. Conditions where there was only a limited culture - mainly from knowledge of the workings of the British parliament - of democratic governance. It was a time when the idea of freedom was in the balance. They were acutely aware of how a leader could degenerate from a servant of the people into a tyrant and put in placve safeguards which made the USA a more robust type of liberal democracy than the French Republic turned out to be later. The USA never had a Bonaparte because the FF put in safeguards against it. One safeguard was to arm the people against any tyrant's army that may emerge. Are you arguing with yourself? I said they were anti Christian, and blasphemously so on many occasions. I did not say they were anti-religious. When I see the state of the US Right and how conservatives of all hues collaborate in the empowerment of the Palins, Bachmanns and Perrys of this world, I think such criticism is fair. I do not level such criticism at those - maybe you - who take every opportunity to condemn the reactionaries in the conservative camp who want to return the USA (and world) to the dark ages. I don't see too many conservatives on here EVER debating with other conservatives. There is just one almighty thuggish cheerleading exercise and a sectarian tribalism which sees intelligent conservatives chuckling along with thugs as they sneer at their "opponents" and "foreigners". You can find such stuff on this thread if you look. Remember, the subject of this thread is how those of us who don't own guns are slaves. Not whether there is a role for privately owned guns in society. This is an extremist, quais-survivalist proposal. If you don't want to be associated with this type of nutjob paranoia then clearly delinate how your moderate and reasonable conservativism differs from this degenerate and crude hyperbole. Sorry for the delay.
It's difficult to see the point you are making. The country is in a civil war. The US military is not losing, it just doesn't have the political will to take any more losses. All the people are armed. This is not preventing the threat from Taliban tyranny. What prevents the threat from tyranny is when millions vote in elections, despite them doing so under threat of death from the Taliban. The majority prevails in an election. Totalitarians - Marxists and fascists - never like the results of elections that go against them, blaming it on demagogues, a right wing press, or a liberal press or...some other excuse for losing the argument. So you want a revolution? Be more specific. Revolutions are not right per se, but depend on what they are trying to replace and with what. Maybe you think that I am supporting democracy as an absolute principle. I am not quite doing that as there are rare occasions when democracy degenerates into tyranny - such as Weimar Germany. None of these have been due to people not having enough guns. The problem I have is that you seem to define tyranny as what we have now in liberal democracies. This is exactly what communists do as well. There is no tyranny. There is, as I have painstakingly pointed out, clear accountability for Western governments to their peoples and clear defences by individuals against the tyranny of the majority. Strawman. I didn't say "will not". I argued "less likely to" which seems to be exactly what you are saying. Why are you trying to find disagreement when none exists? Is this just a big set piece partisan fight for you? But it's still harder to persecute those who seem closer to you than swarthy people where dragons live, isn't it? Ad hominem? Can't you guys take a bit of rough and tumble? I made a vigorous argument where I showed you a significant amount of respect. You just want to fight here? Protestant work ethic, utilitarian education goals...mildly interesting...so what? Not sure where you're going here. Are you suggesting we abolish public education? Your argument is much too vulgar Marxist for my liking (the idea that education is consciosuly devised to serve particular narrow requirements of the ruling class). I think there is a lot in what you say, but I also think that liberal ideology played a parallel role. When the ideals of liberal thinkers like Tom Paine and his antecedents coincided with the religious principles of freethinking protestants and these coincided with the financial interests of emerging capitalism, then the modern world, including its education system, is what ensued. It's a big subject. You call anything you don't like "tyranny". I, you see, prefer the concepts of the social contract that underlay the principles of the FF. Hobbes and Hume would see no real tyranny in any of today's modern democracies. The people can change the government. The individual is protected from the executive by the rule of law. All the fundamental requirements for liberty are in place. The tyrants are those who want to overthrow this state of affairs - and the tyrants are gaining ground in the USA. Had they been armed, as I have said, they would have been wiped out by the army in their thousands. There is not a shadow of doubt about that. I think you should read Gandhi again. The people will win. If they had been armed they would have been exterminated. You just made that last bit up. The morality of war does not depend on a vote. I have never argued that. The war against Iraq was clearly justified by the crimes against humanity committed by Saddam. That can only be a judgement. That this also coincided with US strategic economic interests was the reason there was a war.
I will co,e back heroclitus, its late. For now though, the OP was not free men own guns and if you dont you are a slave. Not to say you are a slave if you do not own a firearm as you wouldnt be very free not to have a choice. It was simply against the idea of lots of gun control and regulation, and against the idea that having a gun was some sort of evil paranoid act of violence. Nobody that has posted has responded to it as if I meant what you seem to have gathered from it. Tomorrow when I have more than my cell phone I will respond to your above post.
There was no argument. "While I can appreciate your need for cynicism" Strawman. I was not arguing from a position of a "need" for cynicism. If you are accusing me of being a cynic, then it's just more ad hominem. " do believe that the we have over two hundred years of proof that our system HAS prevented "tyranny", Post hoc. Correlation is not causation. There have been other democracies that have degraded into tyranny, so perhaps it not just "our form" of government. In any case, it's your assertion to prove now. And, one might argue as Kokomojo does in his fashion, that tyranny has not been prevented, it is simply a different form of tyranny that advances everyday. What one deems to be tyranny is largely subjective. "no amount of demagoguery will change this." Ad hominem, accusation of demogoguery.
If it cannot prosecute the war because one of the major factors cannot be overcome, then it is not winning. I'm not sure where people get the idea that voting prevents tyranny. The majority of those who aren enfranchised to vote and actually do vote, you mean. And what does it mean to "prevail"? Those in power do not need to fix an election by voter fraud; they can also fix it by limiting the choices available to the voters. There are also demogogues. I'm curious. What, objectively, makes democracy more "right" than fascism or marxism? Can a majority of voters vote for tyranny or is everything they vote for always correct? And, if not, how do you decide right from wrong? By what principle do you deem a revolution right or wrong? But the people voted for it, so why was it wrong? Tell that to the pot smoker locked in a cage and his future prospects ruined for ingesting a plant. What makes them more legitimate than other defenses that people might employ? You wrote, with what I took as a parody of my earlier arguments: "The army will not repress people who are its kith and kin" I don't recall you ever arguing that an army would be less likely to fire upon its own people. If that was not the case, I apologize. If you want rough and tumble, then I'm game to go at it. However you were whining and whinging earlier about "anti-foreigner bigotry" so I felt it best to refrain from getting at all personal. I'm guessing now, that what you think of as anti-foreignor bigotry, is probably more personal feelings about you rather than anything directed at your fellow countrymen. Well yes, I've argued that before, but I don't intend to derail the thread with it. Perhaps. One need only research the words of the founders of modern government education. They were quite vocal about their intentions. Actually, I refer to any government action that interferes with the peaceful exercise of rights by any individual to be tyranny. The tyrants won out a long time ago. Progressives (which does not mean liberal, despite the tendency to conflate the two) are just twisting the screws slowly enough to avoid outright revolt, and using the government education system to instill further servility into the populace. So you assert. Unlike you, I prefer analysis over absolutes on the basis of nothing. I don't need to. Gandhi, along with Tolstoy, would have pointed out that one cannot be pacifist and advocate violence, including disarmament, against peaceful people. Again, an assertion without any support. How would they have been easily exterminated if armed? Do you think they would not have fired back? What keeps an Egyptian soldier, the victim of universal conscription (which democracies often vote for as well), interested in fighting his own people? Fear of the punishment for desertion is about all, and that's only so long as he is certain that he'll be caught if he does desert. Why does a war have to be justified by anything other than the will of the voters? Is there some other principle of right and wrong and how do you avoid the contradictions?
Ken, you are looking for a serious discussion which is rare on here. I might even have te read or re-read some philosophi to do this justice. Are you up for serious discussion where we try and see the other persons point if view before we challenge it (a Socratic method of dialogue)?
Certainly, and particularly since it was under that great bastion of freedom, Democracy, that forced Socrates to his death for alleged impiety.
Actually there was. You simply opted to ignore it. I made a counterargument in it that you still have not addressed nor even chose to quote for that matter. Remember? I said: "You're moving the goalposts now. You didn't originally say that the Constitution didn't "make anyone free". No, you actually said that "Democracy has never been a defense against tyranny. The bill of rights is paper, it has no authority."" Which of course dovetails nicely with my concurrent observations that you took umbrage to. It would seem that you have a very thin skin, because there really wasn't anything there malicious. Really. I responded to your argument that the "bill of rights is paper, it has no authority" , which is absurd on its face. Our rule of law which has served us quite well these many years was founded on the principles put forth in that particular document. Your argument has no basis in reality or fact. Even your other statement that "Democracy has never been a defense against tyranny" is unsupportable. The fact that tyranny does happen in some parts of the world does not mean that Democracy does not help in preventing it from happening. One need only look at the amount of tyranny in Dictatorships and Autocracies to see this fact. Unfortunately you have chosen to ignore this counterargument that I have previously offered you in favor of petty and false indignation. You really can do better. Lipstick on a pig. When you subscribe to a world view that there is an impending or existing tyranny in our country as you clearly have here, then you may call it what you will, but it's still cynicism. I will assume that you are not once again moving the goalposts by taking a more liberal definition of "tyranny", which would naturally change the nature of the discussion completely. Therefor I will respond to your more consistent argument that one would need to show causation for Democracy to be considered a natural determinant for our lack of tyranny in this country over our full existence. The logical answer to this is that is simply that the burden of proof is fully on yourself as it is YOUR argument that "Democracy has never been a defense against tyranny". You will, of course need to show how this statement is true, while perhaps showing the more preferable methods of defense against tyranny than a strong Democracy. You also have the burden of proof to support YOUR argument that the "bill of rights is paper, it has no authority". These are YOUR arguments, not mine. Are you prepared to defend these statements, or are you going to further ignore this and instead focus on an imagined slight? Hopefully, it will be the former.
I don't know if you are right there. BHK seems to me to be a classical libertarian and you know proper liberals should always have a soft spot for such. This is not the same species as the reactionary feudalists who want to turn the world back to 1776 - the New American Tories who makeup most of today's US Right. Libertarianism is rational, smart and has some depth, in contrast to the philistine, white trash, lumpen xenophobia, simplistic and certainly cynical grunting that characterizes most of the Tea Party supporters' utterances. I'd take Ron Paul over the neo fascist cabal of Palin, Bachmann and the thug Perry any day of the week.
Apology accepted. I wasnt arguing with something you never said, I simply asked you to explain something from your perspective. Switzerlands guns are not all locked in the attic. There are competitions held all the time both officially and private. The lagacy is one of great pride for them. Not many will attempt to break into someones house if they know the people inside are armed. Just like danct, the founders do not agree with you about the right to bear arms. Of course your explaination is valid however theres more to it. The founders knew that the idea of a republic was not something which would be easily upheld. They all had doubt about whether their system of checks and balances would defend the people from tyranny. If the government were to become obstructive to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it was going to be the peoples right to alter or abolish it. Through force if necessary.
I have a difficult time finding a soft spot for an unproven belief that I would argue DOES indeed wish to turn the clocks back. That being said, I still claim a cynicism in anyone who sees tyranny where it does not exist. This is not unlike the mistaken belief that there is a significant plot to take away citizen's guns.
Perverse comment. The founders do not agree with me agreeing with them? I totally agree with the founders and sympathize with their fears. I explained that and you seem to have acknowledged that. My argument is clear. That was then. This is now. The FF accurately foresaw a lot of problems. They lived in a world dominated by feudalism where liberal democracy had taken no roots. This is not today's world and the FF's deliberations are not those of biblical prophets or Popish saints. France does not today have a risk of a Bonapartist putsch as it did in 1789. Britain has a democratic government where the monarch is almost completely disenfranchised. Germany (which did not even exist in 1776) has a strong democratic culture unlike anything it has in the 1930s. Italy (again which did not even exist in 1776)...well maybe there they need guns...but every exception proves the rule as they say. An argument that guns are required for liberty is an argument that European countries are tyrannies. Some xenophonic thugs on the Right in the US are quite clear about this. I take umbrage at such nonsense. The argument is that there is tyranny in Europe because there are no guns. Not just the tyranny of stopping people shooting guns (boo hoo!), but also a general tyranny that exisst because the people cannot shoot their leaders (this is the critical point that is made). This is the argument. And this argument is now being extended to the USA. The argument, as in your OP, is that gun control is allowing tyranny to take place. It's bollocks. Now definitions of tyranny in a philosophical context are something different. Those who reject the contrat social which underlines the American Revolution may need to have their arguments addressed. They are basically anarchists who see zero role for government. They define practically any law whatsoever as tyranny. It's an esoteric point of view that we can debate on a forum. What it is NOT is the point of view of the Founding Fathers. The USA is not a tyranny. It is a free country, as are most European countries, with democratically elected governments, protection of individual rights and the rule of law. It's fine to debate with serious anarchists and libertarians. What is not fine is for lies to be told about what is "American tradition" and what is not. What is not fine is those who climb on this bandwagon because they are racist, xenophobic, very unintelligent (a lot of people fall into this category, they are just stoolpigeons for crude propaganda), supersititiious religious zealots, or another type of nutjob. I have no problem debating with people who object to the liberal values of the American Revolution. I have read my Tom Paine and my Thomas Jefferson and know that these are the very same values that inspired liberalism in Europe. American values are the values of the European Enlightenment. Pure and simple. What is disturbing are those who are ignorant of American history and yet use it as their justification, or moreso, those who deliberately twist things into lies to support their new American Tory prejudices. The fact that all American conservatives prefer to be silent about the dangerous liars, snakeoil salesmen and extremists in their midst is a cause for concern. Leftists don't do this. They would rather have a principled debate than win an election. It's something that can be said for them, at least.
Its not a perverse comment. The founders ideas conflict with your own. Just because europeans and americans may not be currently oppressed does not make it so that one day a government may become obstructive and need to be altered or abolished. We simply disagree on this, you trust them, and I dont. Mainly because I am a superstitious Xenophobe rascist I know. Because the government is made up of aliens and people who are not my race.
