Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by An Taibhse, Jan 29, 2018.
What puts a roof over your head and food on your plate?
Yes. There is a disconnect, but it is not from my side of the dialogue.
I told you before. I might go through the motions as a courtesy to the government, but if I want to leave, I'll do so regardless of whether they like it or not. The United States Supreme Court has ruled you have a Right to travel so, again, if you have to ask permission, you do not have the right.
Never thought about the travel angle. Granted, with many of these guys that cannot comprehend the law, you have a point. It's not true with me. You may notice that some uneducated people on the right poke fun at the patriots who spent the 70s, 80s, 90s, and on into the early 2000s trying to fight for Liberty and Freedoms be it fighting the illegally ratified 14th and 16th Amendments, protecting the Right to travel, fighting against the implementation of National ID, fighting One World Government... and yes, even fighting against gun control.
Those who don't have a clue (as one of the robotic posters accuses the right of) continue to make specious arguments, but many on the right ARE traveling down the same road as you. Both of you are going to end up at the same destination.
Either your unalienable Rights are bestowed upon you by a Creator OR they are granted by government. You cannot have it both ways and if I have a RIGHT to do something, I'll be damned if I ask the government for permission to do it. This doesn't apply to just gun control, it applies to every aspect of life.
The courts ruled that an inalienable right can be alienated provided you give consent. That is NOT the case with an unalienable Right and NO COURT IN THE U.S. has ever ruled that you can willingly consent to forfeiting an unalienable Right, only the inalienable ones.
The process has been is to get the American people to willingly concede a right here and another there - accept a license for this and a permit for that. And, when it serves the right, they are all about licenses, permits, permission, etc. regardless of what the founders intended. For that reason, they imply that my logic is flawed while they are taking a giant dump on their own Liberties. Give it time Vegas giants. Those who are pretending that they have a monopoly on understanding and are busting my chops will be walking hand in hand with you... sitting around the campfire singing Kum Bah Yah.
My advice to you is to use your time chiding those who are only consistent with inconsistency. I support the principle of unalienable Rights even when it costs me on an issue here or there...
Lets be clear.
You will stand in line.
You will present your passport that you filed for in advance or
you will answer every question asked of you and present your fingerprints for examination.
You will NOT just walk into this country.
THOSE ARE THE FACTS
Okay, enlighten me. Seriously; I'm trying to be as open and honest as I can be here and I encourage you to do the same.
You say there is a right to self-defense. I agree with you. You do NOT agree that this right thus entitles you to be able to access the most effective self-defense options available. I see those two viewpoints as contradictory. Please elaborate on how I am wrong on this?
OMG. Let me tell you some facts. Years ago the right told us the only thing they had against the little brown people from south of the border is that they came in here "illegally." So, my thinking was to show people how to come in legally, take that issue off the table, and move forward on the One World Government, gun control, National ID, etc.
I ended up spending six years working in immigration law. Let me assure you that after that experience, if I want to come or go, the facts are that I can do so with relative success and there isn't much of a chance Uncle Scam can do anything to change the odds - walls, National ID, etc.
Millions of people come into this country and building walls would only profit companies that sell tunneling equipment.
You're under this delusion that government is God. You and I disagree. The fact that they have all these laws, more people in prison in the U.S. than in any country on any planet, and still people capable of ignoring this government God you've created should tell you something.
NONE of this has any bearing on the ethics of gun ownership.
The analogy is perfect. Be polite at the border, answer the questions asked of you and present your documentation BEFORE you exercise your right to return to this country. To do something similiar for guns makes sense.
I'm sure those who like to criticize me will continue to be inconsistent and do exactly as you say.
Then again, most are too lazy to study the principles of stare decisis.
The facts are the facts counselor
Out the other side of their mouths they will tell you the right to life includes not just the right to health care, but the right to health care paid for by someone else.
I've explained it to you but unfortunately, it upset you. I don't want to go through it all over again. I am trying to be kind here. Isn't that what we agreed?
Can you reference the post that contains the explanation?
So let me sum it up for you and you won't need to waste time on this any longer:
FACT: America was built upon the presupposition that all men have unalienable Rights
FACT: An unalienable Right is a Right that is bestowed upon you at birth by your Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be)
FACT: In order to appease all sides concerned the terminology about inherent, natural, etc. were / are used interchangeably with unalienable
FACT: While the terms inalienable and unalienable were the same, grammatically speaking, the American courts applied different definitions to each of them
FACT: In American jurisprudence unalienable / inherent / natural / God given Rights cannot be aliened; inalienable rights CAN be aliened if the person holding such rights consents to it
FACT: ONE of the ways the government expanded its powers over the individual was the illegal ratification of the 14th Amendment which recognizes privileges and immunities; it never addresses your unalienable Rights. The 14th Amendment created two classes of citizens: Preamble and 14th Amendment citizens
FACT: The objective of the government has been to tell you that you had "rights" and then claiming it could take those "rights" AND that you could forfeit your "rights" if you so consented...But which "rights" could you consent to forfeit and what "rights" were subject to a grant by the government? The fact is, that is inalienable rights
FACT: The government has the power to do a lot of things. Many times they lack the authority
FACT: When the right adopted the vocabulary of the left (especially with their incessant ignorance of arguing with me about inalienable versus unalienable Rights) they unwittingly stipulated to your arguments that we have no rights. For, as the courts ruled, you can forfeit and the government can grant an inalienable right, but they NOR you will not find one case to support the proposition that the government has any jurisdiction over an unalienable Right. Those on the right who insist on using the word inalienable are now stuck with the case precedents which govern inalienable rights
FACT: I have unalienable Rights because I am willing to claim them as per the methodology laid out by the founding fathers. Yeah, you might be able to take rights from me through power and force, but I can retake those unalienable Rights that were unconstitutionally taken - even if it must be done by force.
My critics on the pro-gun side lose to you because they do not understand how their Rights were taken.
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
...A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield." President George Washington, Farewell Address
Fact: Unalienable rights do not exist outside of a belief system and rights are granted by the government thru the people.
FACT: Our system of jurisprudence is predicated upon the presupposition that unalienable Rights are bestowed upon us at birth by a Creator (our God, whomever we deem that to be.)
Your incessant B.S. is irrelevant in this regard. Okay, great. You don't believe the presupposition. I got that over 20000 posts ago in the years you've been rehashing the same skeet. Grow up son and move the Hell forward.
Our country was built upon a presupposition. You can disbelieve it until Hell freezes over. That is your Right - and I'd fight to the death to defend your Right to disbelieve in that presupposition.
At the same time, the Constitution is much like a contract and if the government fails to enforce and guarantee those Rights (especially those in the Bill of Rights) as was originally and intended, then we, the people, are under NO OBLIGATION TO THIS COUNTRY FOR ANYTHING.
That, son, is WHY we have a Second Amendment and you can shove your opinion where the sun don't shine because all your banter will never change the FACTS nor the inevitability of what's going to happen. If you choose the tyranny of mobocracy, good luck.
I see no point in beating a dead horse. You've made your point; I've made mine.
I don't believe in your mythology. And I will point it out whenever I am challenged on it. And there is no need to take this so personally. Try decaf. It may help you calm down
When you can prove something to be a "myth," get back to me. That presupposition is serving you well. Without a guaranteed Right to free expression, someone would have shut you down long ago. So, you can keep disbelieving while you exercise the Rights our forefathers fought, bled, and died to secure for your ungrateful arse.
You have rights. They are just not unalienable. That is a belief only.
Ungrateful? That is freaking hilarious
Respectfully, what you "explained" was in angry, over-the-top language not supported by certain facts. Okay? Look, I get what you've been through and that your visceral reactions to this issue have created a certain viewpoint in you. I have a lot of friends and family members who are military veterans of different nations and saw combat everywhere from Vietnam to Afghanistan; some see things more like you, some not so much. I'm going to put up some comments, based on your prior comments; please remember I'm responding in hopes of initiating respectful dialogue, not to be offensive.
From my point of view, this is not a "stupid game". Self-defense is a multi-faceted subject with many different layers; from the type of attack to the type of assailant to the type of victim. An elderly and frail person is going to need different tools to be effective in self-defense than a 200 pound martial arts expert... and there are some situations where survival itself can turn on access to very specific tools.
This scenario is based in something out of bad Hollywood fiction and not in real world situations. It reveals an astonishing (and unjustifiable) contempt for Americans in general that has about zero basis in reality. Heck, one of my firearms instructors from law enforcement carries a matchbook with a $10 bill rubberbanded to it; if he were ever to be confronted in plain clothes he's got the plan to flip them the matchbook and say something along the lines of: "Have a drink on me" as he walks away. The easiest fight to win is the one you don't get into in the first place, and I'm fully supportive of that idea. But.... sometimes there are circumstances where walking away is what will get you killed.
Seriously, I don't know where you get this perception. I know you've lived in the U.S, and Lord knows I haven't lived everywhere it's possible to live, but this reads like a bad episode of "Myths and Legends" than an argument based on fact, and there sure as Hell aren't shootouts in the streets over parking spaces. I'm a pretty well-educated guy, believe it or not. I've also spent most of my life in the law-enforcement and security fields. I'm not interested in being a "hero" and I don't try to intimidate people. I also don't role-play my way through my life. In fact, I tend to prefer an unfailingly polite and good natured mien when I'm walking around in public. But I'm alive today because I had a gun and knew how to use it, and I recognize the life-saving utility intrinsic to a responsibly carried and utilized defensive sidearm even if you can't.
Separate names with a comma.