"Supremes Consider Right to Bear Arms"


They better allow us to bare arms cuz I ain't givin' my short sleeved shirts up without a gosh darned fight!

Goddam Diana Ross, tryin' to take my fargin' rights away!!!!

The right to bear arms is a good and neccessary idea.

The right to arm bears, on the other hand, is pure foolishness.

Those things are already GODLESS KILLING MACHINES!

Just ask Colbert, he'll tell ya.

Don't the Supremes watch the THREATDOWN?

Be Well.

HEREs what might happen......the SC will come down with the ruling that citizens have the right to own a gun

so the question remains...IS IT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS JOB TO REGULATE GUN CONTROL???? and i think the answer will be....NO....and that the states will remain in control of gun laws....AS IT SHOULD BE

there are questions about if semiauto guns...or the advancement of guns after the 2nd amendment was written.....the ANSWER to those questions is pretty simple....the 2nd amendment was created to evolve with modern times....it would be stupid to say that in 2008... only muskets are allowed in the hands of the citizens....besides if the second amendment was create to protect the people and the state.....then you must have modern weapons to do that.....common sence dictates

Guns will remain legal to possess...

Its their interpretation of the possession of BULLETS that I'm concerned about.

YEAH!

It's about time!

I'm eager to get my Machine Gun and Grenades before Bush is finished with us!

I have a feeling im gonna need em to fend off the "personally responsible" Bush bots when they come crying for a handout because they were too busy blaming someone else for everything when they should have been preparing for what's coming (as is their usual way)!

there are questions about if semiauto guns...or the advancement of guns after the 2nd amendment was written.....the ANSWER to those questions is pretty simple....the 2nd amendment was created to evolve with modern times....it would be stupid to say that in 2008... only muskets are allowed in the hands of the citizens....besides if the second amendment was create to protect the people and the state.....then you must have modern weapons to do that.....common sence dictates
Posted by judas at 2008-03-18 03:43 PM
YEAH!


Funny how the Bush Bots believe the constitution is a static Document, except in this case where magically one part is evolving!

Similar to how they just changed the Banking Rules to include Tax Payer Bailouts for investment firms citing "the document wasn't written to account for today's business needs" while at the same time insisting the constitution isn't a living document and doesn't need an adjustment to account for "Today's Needs"!

The torture of Logic by these cretins is excruciating!

the key to this issue happened in 2000 and 2004 as in the defeat of al gore as president because if he had won, the court would be getting ready to abolish the 2nd amendment or severly damage it but because we have people there that are the RIGHT ones appointed by bush, this shouldnt be a problem.
of course it looks like the problem might be more of one concerning dc's status....is that the way some of you see it.
and would this be one of those rulings that doesnt apply to anywhee else???

the key to this issue happened in 2000 and 2004 as in the defeat of al gore as president because if he had won, the court would be getting ready to abolish the 2nd amendment or severly damage it but because we have people there that are the RIGHT ones appointed by bush, this shouldnt be a problem

YEAH!

You said "Bush" and "Right" in the same sentence! No one will ever accuse of learning anything --- will they!

DeadAboveTheNeckVille wrote: "Funny how the Bush Bots believe the constitution is a static Document, except in this case where magically one part is evolving!"

Arguing that the founders only meant flintlocks when they wrote the word "guns" in the Constitution is the same as arguing that they only meant broadside newspapers when they wrote "the press". Applying your logic, everything that has ever been said on TV or radio or in an on-line blog is not covered by the Consitution.
Your argument is idiotic.

the hell with bear arms, I want a bear claw! And a big mug of coffee!

the key to this issue happened in 2000 and 2004 as in the defeat of al gore as president because if he had won, the court would be getting ready to abolish the 2nd amendment or severly damage it but because we have people there that are the RIGHT ones appointed by bush, this shouldnt be a problem

YEAH!

Perhaps this wouldn't even be on the agenda if Al Gore was president. Perhaps, (and there is no real way to know but since we are just concocting speculative outcomes) we would have moved on to more important matters of the day instead and aren't rehashing a topic settled over 200 years ago (which seems to garner the most WingDing Attention when it no longer an issue).
But this is an election year and those Bush Cult Sons of Bitchs need to drive a stake deep into the heart of America in the hopes of reviving their Thousand Year Rule fantasy!

It's a blatantly Republican supreme court. Gun nuts are one of the few constituencies - maybe along with fetal rights folk - that the Repubs have left. How will we cut President O'Bama's tenure in office short if we take away the People's Right to waste presidents? This will be a no-brainer. herm

Funny how the Bush Bots believe the constitution is a static Document, except in this case where magically one part is evolving!


Funny how Redneckville sees this as them saying it's an evolving document. It is plain to anyone's eyes that arms for militias is no longer relevant and it would be nice for the SCOTUS to give us an idea of how the 2nd amendment should be read today.

and your stretching and exagerating and nonsense is excruciating as well.........but when has that ever stopped you......LOL

HEREs what might happen......the SC will come down with the ruling that citizens have the right to own a gun

so the question remains...IS IT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS JOB TO REGULATE GUN CONTROL???? and i think the answer will be....NO....and that the states will remain in control of gun laws....AS IT SHOULD BE

Posted by judas

The states cannot over-rule the US constitution.

So many point to the wording of the 2nd Amendment to shut down the argument. They say the guns were meant only to form a Militia. What these people don't know is that the word malitia in those days meant the same as civilain.


And don't get me wrong, NRA, I'm for guns 100%. I was simply stating that it would be nice to have a ruling that lends itself to today's speech.

Originally intended this for OldWhiskySour on another related thread when he questioned what "well regulated milita" meant... but I might as well reproduce it here since it is relevant:

OWS.... why don't you ask the founding fathers that. Ooops... no need. They made their position perfectly clear:


"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither
inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and
better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." --(1764 Letter and speech from Thomas
Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self
defense." --John Adams (A defense of the Constitution of the US)


"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." --George Mason (3 Elliot,
Debates at 380)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in
almost every country in Europe." --Noah Webster (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)

And that is just to start on the right to be armed... now for what they meant about the militia:

"I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." --George Mason (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)


"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and
include all men capable of bearing arms." --Richard Henry Lee (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

As a further tidbit I offer this little bit of knowledge on how the words "regulated militia" would have been interpreted back when the amendment was written:

"Back in the 18th century, a "regular" army meant an army that had
standard military equipment. So a "well regulated" army was simply one that was "well equipped." It
does NOT refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term "STANDING Army"

to describe a professional army. THEREFORE, "a well regulated militia" only means a well equipped
militia. It does not imply the modern meaning of "regulated," which means controlled or administered
by some superior entity."

Lastly, for all of those that think the Constitution is a "living document" in the sense that it should be reinterpreted as needed, I give you the words of Thomas Jefferson:

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --THOMAS JEFFERSON, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, found in The Complete Jefferson, p. 322

Yeah, but these same gentlemen also said that we should be having another revolution every once in a while. Why do you support revolting against the government of our great country, Moonman?

SNIPER...im not saying that the states have the right to over rule the constitution

but i do not see where it say in the constitution where it says the federal government job to regulate gun control

Yeah, but these same gentlemen also said that we should be having another revolution every once in a while. Why do you support revolting against the government of our great country, Moonman?

Montecore... I know it is tough for you, but try not to be a total idiot.

They said that sometimes it is necessary, not that it should be done periodically just for kicks.

Hey bitch - remember who you talkin to. Show some respect, or I'll send my boy associate Kevie23 from Winston Slaveholder Strawn over to teach you a lesson.

Monte,

Is he the poor man's Frank Cotton?

THE GOVERNMENT CAN NOT PROTECT YOU FROM CRIME....READ PLEASE

Courts have held that governments are not liable for their failures to protect. Specifically, "A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security . . ." (See the Supreme Court decision DESHANEY v. WINNEBAGO CTY. SOC. SERVS. DEPT.) So, Maryland law enforcement can release violent people back into society (see Pinder vs. Johnson for another case of gross failure of law enforcement that resulted in the deaths of three children) and Maryland officials have no responsibility for that negligence.



Moreover, other jurisdictions have held similarly:
". . . a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen . . ."

Reference: Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)

Oh yeah, and here's the quote:

"About to enter, fellow-citizens, on the exercise of duties which comprehend everything dear and valuable to you, it is proper you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our Government, and consequently those which ought to shape its Administration. I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general principle, but not all its limitations. Oh yeah, and every once in a while, just for kicks, it is important to have a revolution or two."

Moonman, you've been served.

Good find Judas.

The founding fathers said that it is the citizens responsibility to keep the government in check. They said that when the government begins to take away their rights they have the right to abolish that government and establish a new one.

Still don't understand this common sense issue? Just look at what has happened throughout history. The Genocide in Africa, what was the first move of the dictators? Take away every gun that was not under thier control. Hilter in WWII, his first move, get the guns out of the hand of the people he was going to target with his final solution.

Mooman you forgot to post quote from someone they respect.

"We don't let them have ideas. Why would we let them have guns?"
Joseph Stalin

Monte,

And from earlier in the same speech:

Let us, then, with courage and confidence pursue our own Federal and Republican principles, our attachment to union and representative government.

Vollied back... ball is in your court. Seems Jefferson evisioned everyone being a Republican.

;-)

NOW THIS WAS DECIDED BY SC....now if SC says the government is not responsible to protect you...and if the 2nd amendemnt says you can not protect yourself with WEAPONS or FIRE ARMS

then what is the answer to being protected against violent criminals

Mooman you forgot to post quote from someone they respect.

I think you are mistaking the tone of my argument with Monte.

My point was to look at who in history has wanted to take the guns away from the people, definitely not friends of freedom. I figured if many don't want to follow the founding fathers concepts on our rights the may find support for their ideals in other places.

Monte,

Damn... got a "Page Not Found" at that link. Too bad, I was looking forward to getting a gander at this Rambo of Cyberspace.

I think what happened at Kent State in the early 70's is a powerful argument for the right to bear arms.

hahahaha.... what is he going to do? Beat me with his fake mammaries?

READ THIS

The court ruled in favor of the Town of Castle Rock. Here is a brief excerpt of the decision which can be viewed in its entirety at the Supreme Court Website.

Colorado law has not created a personal entitlement to enforcement of restraining orders. It does not appear that state law truly made such enforcement mandatory. A well-established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes. Cf. Chicago v. Morales, 527 U. S. 41, 47, n. 2, 62, n. 32. Against that backdrop, a true mandate of police action would require some stronger indication than the Colorado statute's direction to "use every reasonable means to enforce a restraining order" or even to "arrest . . . or . . . seek a warrant." A Colorado officer would likely have some discretion to determine that--despite probable cause to believe a restraining order has been violated--the violation's circumstances or competing duties counsel decisively against enforcement in a particular instance.
It means that this woman did not have an expectation that the police would protect her even though she had a restraining order. It also means that women who presently have a restraining order against a violent spouse may not be safe.

It means that the government cannot protect you despite the fact that they promulgate that myth. Oh after you are dead, they will come take a report and the coroner will carry your body away.

SO THATS WHY THE SC WILL RULE IN FAVOR OF PERSONAL FIREARMS...HAND GUNS

WELL REGULATED MILITIA (well trained modern militia) WILL MEAN WE ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE ...ASSULT RIFLES TOO

I think what happened at Kent State in the early 70's is a powerful argument for the right to bear arms.

Believe it or not Monte, I agree with your statement. It protection from abuses by government that was ONE of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment in the first place.

SUPREME COURT RULING SAYS...It means that the government cannot protect you despite the fact that they promulgate that myth. Oh after you are dead, they will come take a report and the coroner will carry your body away

BTW...for the few that say ban ammo...it will not happen because that will effect the 2nd amendment...and will be ruled as so

Judas, once you start repeating yourself, you move out out of the territory of rational debate and informing people, and move into the realm of spamming.

Monte-he looks like one bad hombre!
I didn't see anything on there about when he's due-though....

"Believe it or not Monte, I agree with your statement. It protection from abuses by government that was ONE of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment in the first place.

Posted by moomanfl at 2008-03-18 05:35 PM"

The interesting thing is that a rightie would even have to say that. Before some brown guys from the Middle East made you all hide under your bed and shit your panties, you and yours used to question the actions of our gov't, especially in the area of civil liberties. Now, all Bush & Cheney Co. have to do is mutter "national security" or "terrorist threat," and they can surveil your calls, investigate your purchases and library checkouts, etc. with nary a protest from the right. Kind of sad, really.

Frank - he IS bad. If you don't believe it, just ask him and he'll tell you.

The interesting thing is that a rightie would even have to say that.

This Rightie, didn't HAVE to say it. I just noticed that the tone of your comment seemed to be slightly adversarial (not meaning rude or anything), as if you expected that I wouldn't have the same opinion. Therefore I clarified because of this impression by stating that I agree with you.

Of course I could have misread the "adversarial" tone.

Now, all Bush & Cheney Co. have to do is mutter "national security" or "terrorist threat," and they can surveil your calls, investigate your purchases and library checkouts, etc. with nary a protest from the right.

I think you are mistaking me for someone that likes Bush, and agrees with the Patriot Act. In truth, I don't like either one. I used to like Bush to a degree, but I NEVER liked the Patriot Act.

Glad to hear that, Moonman. One less pants-pissing, scared-to-death, closet-bound rightie is a good thing.

The Second Ammendment is the reset button on the Constitution, not a provision for hunting.

The Second Ammendment is the reset button on the Constitution, not a provision for hunting.

Among other things.

ha ha The Second Amendment was never set up to protect hunting. It was put in place for us to protect ourselves. I'm sure at the time they thought that an amendment like this was just common sense. They had no idea how many today would be lacking in that area.

It's also funny to me that the politicians who are so against the people's right to protect themselves are not willing to give up their secret service and body guards. I guess thier life's worth more than yours.

So many point to the wording of the 2nd Amendment to shut down the argument. They say the guns were meant only to form a Militia. What these people don't know is that the word malitia in those days meant the same as civilain.

Posted by everlong

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.

It plainly says the right of the people (just like in 1,9, and 10). It dosn't say the milita.

Why does everyone have so much trouble reading english?

Because they tend to read what they want, enhanced by what they desire... not what the words say.

Peace through brute force. Whiskey Rebellion ring a bell.

Yes it does, Uncle Sam. If the rebels had been able to field more men it might have gone differently, per the methods Jefferson (and others) had already talked about.

The fact is, there were other means to accomplish what the rebels wanted to do, and eventually they got their way anyway. The whiskey tax was repealed 10 years later, and in the mean time the Democratic Republican Party took power from the Federalist Party because of the whole debacle.

The point is, the Whiskey Rebellion was a case of jumping the gun. Force (or the attempt of it) should only have been used after all other options were tried and failed.

To clarify my last two sentences.... the rebels should have used force as a last option. They are the ones that jumped the gun (so to speak).

"It plainly says the right of the people (just like in 1,9, and 10). It dosn't say the milita.

Why does everyone have so much trouble reading english?"

They can read it, they just don't want to acknowledge it.

They think they can find a loophole in the wording, rather than focusing on the plain intent.

Most likely the same morons who find every perversion known to man protected by the 1st amendment.

"It plainly says the right of the people (just like in 1,9, and 10). It dosn't say the milita.

Why does everyone have so much trouble reading english?"

They can read it, they just don't want to acknowledge it.

They think they can find a loophole in the wording, rather than focusing on the plain intent.

Most likely the same morons who find every perversion known to man protected by the 1st amendment.

If we start changing the constitution "whats next repeling the bill of rights". This supreme court must issue a statement defending the constitution. We take a large responsibility in having guns in our homes but the intent at that time was to make sure we where all safe from the British.

The right to bear arms is an ammendment to the consitution. The President swears to uphold the constition, why is this even going to the supreme court. President Bush should be interviening here and doing his job but thats right , he is not a real President just a puppet of special lobby interests so he can go back to being a rich oilmnan in 9 months.

It dosn't say the milita.

Why does everyone have so much trouble reading english?

Posted by Sniper at 2008-03-18 08:13 PM | Reply


"A well regulated militia"----why is that in the sentence?

"being necessary to the security of a free state"---why is that in the sentence?

"What these people don't know is that the word malitia in those days meant the same as civilain.


And don't get me wrong, NRA, I'm for guns 100%. I was simply stating that it would be nice to have a ruling that lends itself to today's speech."

Posted by everlong at 2008-03-18 04:53 PM | Reply


So what you are saying is that the sentence could just as well have read:

A well regulated civilian, being necessary to a free state, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I do not think you are correct.

I think I agree with the rightards on this one. THe court will rule that there is a right to keep arms, and that any regulation will be left up to the states. Personally the thought of waking up early and putting on funny clothes to go out and kill animals seems kind of childish, but the gun issue is really not that important, IMO, considering the problems we face in this country.

It's just a fact of life that we will have to accept - frankly I'm sick of the whole thing and can't wait for the ruling.

Personally the thought of waking up early and putting on funny clothes to go out and kill animals seems kind of childish, but the gun issue is really not that important, IMO, considering the problems we face in this country.

Posted by midiman at 2008-03-19 08:40 AM | Reply |


Huh, I never really had you pegged for a homebody...

Personally the thought of waking up early and putting on funny clothes to go out and kill animals seems kind of childish, but the gun issue is really not that important, IMO, considering the problems we face in this country.

Posted by midiman at 2008-03-19 08:40 AM | Reply |


Huh, I never really had you pegged for a homebody...

Posted by 101Chairborne


lol

No ... I'll take my camera out "hunting" in a second, though, and leave the funny clothers behind. No joy in killing here, that's all, but I have no issue with hunting - it's just not my idea of a good time..

No ... I'll take my camera out "hunting" in a second, though, and leave the funny clothers behind. No joy in killing here, that's all, but I have no issue with hunting - it's just not my idea of a good time..

Posted by midiman at 2008-03-19 09:30 AM | Reply | Flag


I was going to ask if you enjoyed hiking (because I do, and frankly my gear consists of funny clothes, and I usually go in the early morning to see wildlife), but then I thought that wouldn't be any fun, so I took a weak shot at you.
I also hunt, but rarely, and when/if I do it's for venison donations to the food bank.

I will however kill any and all coyotes I see, regardless of season.

I will however kill any and all coyotes I see, regardless of season.


Same here with woodchucks in the summer - scum of the earth. No shooting of firearms permitted here, though, but the occasional .22 shot sounds like a firecracker, and the jaws of death traps work really well.

GUNS, GUNS, GUNS... I do love my guns.

"A well regulated militia"----why is that in the sentence?

"being necessary to the security of a free state"---why is that in the sentence?

Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Because a milita is required for a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

There was not a national guard until about 1900 so that isn't what they were talking ablut in 1776.

Try reading the words that are there, not the ones you wish were there. In other words, fight the war with the army you have, not the one you wish you had.

"BTW...for the few that say ban ammo...it will not happen because that will effect the 2nd amendment...and will be ruled as so"

They don't have to ban ammo, just make it too expensive and too big a hassle for the average person to want to deal with.

Illinois Assembly bill HB4349
"Synopsis As Introduced
Creates the Regulated Firearms Encoded Ammunition Act and amends the State Finance Act. Provides that a manufacturer of ammunition for handguns and certain specified assault weapons sold in this State after January 1, 2009 must encode the ammunition in such a manner that the Director of State Police establishes. Provides that ammunition contained in one ammunition box may not be labeled with the same serial number as the ammunition contained in any other ammunition box from the same manufacturer. Provides that on or before January 1, 2011, an owner of ammunition for use in a regulated firearm that is not encoded by the manufacturer shall dispose of the ammunition. Provides that beginning on January 1, 2009, the Director of State Police shall establish and maintain an encoded ammunition database. Creates the Ammunition Accountability Fund as a special fund in the State treasury. Provides that subject to appropriation, the Department of State Police may use moneys from the Fund to establish and maintain the encoded ammunition database. Provides that beginning January 1, 2009, each person selling encoded ammunition at retail in this State shall collect from retail customers a fee of $0.05 for each round that is sold and delivered in this State. Establishes civil and criminal penalties for violations of the Regulated Firearms Encoded Ammunition Act. Effective January 1, 2009."

This would also effectively outlaw reloading.

If I remember correctly, this isn't the only version of the bill currently submitted.

My brother, a former County Mountie in MD will always tell you that he could not be there to protect you in your home in the middle of the night. All he could do was come after and hope to find out who 'did it'. Those of you who do not want a firearm in your home - fine, just hope those breaking in only have a baseball bat, taser, knife, etc. Personally, I'd never take a bat to a gun fight. [12ga pump action rules!]

"I do not think you are correct.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-03-19 07:33 AM"

Fortunately you aren't in a position to decide for the rest of us. The SC (part of the government) will "give" you the right as an individual to bear arms regardless of whether you decide to use it. And you'll just have to bend over and take that right, right up the ass, because as we all well know from your constant idiotic rantings, rights come from the government.

"A well regulated militia"----why is that in the sentence?

"being necessary to the security of a free state"---why is that in the sentence?

Posted by Buffalo_Bob

BBob (not surprisingly) has forgotten his forgotten his Elementary school history lessons, and as an adult it seems he hasn't learned the value of context. He tends to take things out of the situations, vocabulary, and attitudes that they were written, and just focuses on the bare words alone. This is the wrong way to read the Constitution, or indeed any of the words of the founding fathers. They believed the spirit of the words was EVERYTHING.

In the 1700's the "army" for the Revolutionary War was the Minute Men. They weren't a conventional (or "standing army" in the words of the day), instead they were civilians, all armed, that gathered together and drilled. They were sort of a paramilitary rotary club. It was practical and social at the same time. All men of fighting age with weapons joined. Even the women had their place in supporting these men.

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." --Richard Henry Lee (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." --Thomas Jefferson

"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." --Thomas Jefferson

Continued...

At the time, even such people as Jefferson felt that man was inherently sinful. That is to say, that because of "original sin" our souls were naturally tainted. As a result he felt, rightly it seems, that government could not be trusted. That even a good government would eventually go bad and move towards tyranny because of this natural human flaw.

"Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now." --Thomas Jefferson

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." --Thomas Jefferson

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self
defense." --John Adams (A defense of the Constitution of the US)

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." --(1764 Letter and speech from Thomas Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

As a final thought on the importance of the spirit of words. I leave you with one final quote from Thomas Jefferson in regards to how to interpret the Constitution properly:

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --THOMAS JEFFERSON, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, found in The Complete Jefferson, p. 322

"Say all you want about 'well regulated militia' meaning just the military. Your argument holds no water when viewed against history and the authors of this nation."

Say all YOU want about the importance of the spirit of words, the Founding Fathers did not mean to give children the right to blow away their classmates willy-nilly. Those who say otherwise probably do an about-face on the First Amendment and say the Founding Daddies didn't visualize internet porn either. herm

the Founding Fathers did not mean to give children the right to blow away their classmates willy-nilly

Thank you Capt. Obvious.

I believe I already quoted Jefferson in regards to this:

"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." --Thomas Jefferson

No about-face here. Try your next strawman now.

Even in Air Force basic training in 68 it was taught that the 2nd Amendment existed that the populace could be armed in the event their government becomes a tyranny over them. So armed they could rise up and overthrow it as they had to do with england.

I shutter every time some fool Congressman speaks out against many guns with words like 'they have no legitimate sporting purposes'.

Even in Air Force basic training in 68 it was taught that the 2nd Amendment existed that the populace could be armed in the event their government becomes a tyranny over them. So armed they could rise up and overthrow it as they had to do with england.

Indeed, it was only proper that the US Military should teach that, since it was ONE of the main reasons the 2nd Amendment was included.

People like Herm, and BBob have no grasp of history, context, or logic. Instead they rule from their gut and their ideology all while accusing everyone else that is against them of doing the same. Regardless of the true facts.

"I do not think you are correct.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-03-19 07:33 AM"

Fortunately you aren't in a position to decide for the rest of us. The SC (part of the government) will "give" you the right as an individual to bear arms regardless of whether you decide to use it. And you'll just have to bend over and take that right, right up the ass, because as we all well know from your constant idiotic rantings, rights come from the government.

Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2008-03-19 01:46 PM | Reply


As usual you fail to address the point and make it personal.

The point was that the word "militia" meant meant the same as "civilian". I proved him to be mistaken. Try to address the point or try to STFU--whichever you think you are best capable of accomplishing.

Moomanfl


"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." --Richard Henry Lee (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)


AGAIN--pay attention to the sentence if the two are interchangeable.

A well regulated people, being necessary to a free state, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I think Richard Henrty Lee is mistaken as are you--the two are not interchangeable, and not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. If they had in mind what you say they had in mind---the sentence would read:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

OR

"The right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


That isn't what they wrote and that isn't what they meant.

AGAIN--pay attention to the sentence if the two are interchangeable.

I do... and if YOU were paying attention, you would see that they ARE interchangeable. Regardless, your interpretation ignores history and the stated intentions of the people that actually wrote those words.

Lets examine the actual amendment, and substitute your proposed definitions. There is no argument that "the people" always referred to civilians. If you can show an example of "the people" being used otherwise please do so. The only dispute is "well regulated militia" and it's meaning. So, for the sake of this exercise:

"well regulated militia" = "military"

"the people" = "civilians"

Let us see if your interpretation makes sense with the substitutions:

"A military, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of "civilians" to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The SC (part of the government) will "give" you the right as an individual to bear arms regardless of whether you decide to use it. And you'll just have to bend over and take that right, right up the ass, because as we all well know from your constant idiotic rantings, rights come from the government.

Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2008-03-19 01:46 PM


If you and all the other nutjobs think that rights don't come from the government--WTF do you care about what the USSC says?

Again, like all the other right wing nut jobs you fail to see the point, and fail to see what is written.
I am not against the right to bear arms---I have said this several times. In fact it is people like YOU who restrict the right to bear arms---not me. The 2nd says the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Yet I would bet that you would infringe on the right of others to bear arms someplace along the line---not me. As a liberal, I'm for no restriction on the right to bear arms---just like the 2nd says. All arms. Like the 50 cal listed above, Like tanks--aircraft--warships and submarines. Like chemical arms. Like biological arms. Like nuclear arms. I am for the right of citizens to bear arms---I would bet that you would infringe on my right to have a nuke.

But to answer your little question about rights..

Where does the right to bear arms come from if not the government. HELLLOOOoooo

;-)

In other words BBob...

If only the military were to have weapons, why would it be necessary to state that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?

Who are "the people" that the Framers were speaking of.

Well, according to the Framers it was the civilians:

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." --Richard Henry Lee (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

"And that said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress...to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..." SAM ADAMS, in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, Aug. 20, 1789

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." THOMAS JEFFERSON, Proposal for a Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." ZACHARIA JOHNSON, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646

"A free people ought...to be armed..." GEORGE WASHINGTON, speech of Jan. 7, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle, Jan. 14, 1790

Should I keep going? There are plenty of quotes from the Framers explaining what they meant.

Moomanfl

WTF are you rambling on about? I made no changes---I was using someone elses words. Read the posts again and you will see that. A poster said militia and had the same meaning---I proved him to be mistaken.

The interpretation you gave that made no sense was your own. I never said---well regulated militia equal= military. You said that.


"As you can see, your interpretation makes no sense whatsoever since military and civilians are mutually exclusive terms."

Its YOUR interpretation. sheesh

"You can't be both civilian AND military."

I guess you never heard of the National Guard. One weekend a month--two weeks a years active duty. I would classify them as military and civilian and militia and the subject of the 2nd amendment since they fit ALL the criteria.



"However, you can be a part of a civilian militia which was a whole separate concept, and the one that our Revolutionary War was fought with."

Like the one in Michigan McVey belonged to and the government is trying to outlaw? Is that who the 2nd was written for? Like the KKK and the gangs of NY and LA? They would certainly qualify as militia. Seems like gangs should start calling themselves militia and fight for their rights. Like the patriots at WACO? They would certainly qualify as militias. Is that who the 2nd was written for? Not the State Militia? Now there are words that are interchangeable. State Militia/National Guard. I think that is who the 2nd was written for.

You just think the Founding Fathers were too stupid to write the 2nd like this:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You ar mistaken. They were bright enough to write that if that is what they meant. They didn't write that because that isn't what they meant.

Try to read up on history BBob. It is both fascinating, and illuminating.


Posted by moomanfl at 2008-03-19 05:15 PM | Reply

Moomanfl


"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." --Richard Henry Lee (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)


AGAIN--pay attention to the sentence if the two are interchangeable.

A well regulated people, being necessary to a free state, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I think Richard Henrty Lee is mistaken as are you--the two are not interchangeable, and not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. If they had in mind what you say they had in mind---the sentence would read:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

OR

"The right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


That isn't what they wrote and that isn't what they meant.


Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-03-19 04:57 PM

BUFFALO BOB - Guess you didn't get the memo that the 2nd is not about hunting. No sweat on the correction on the spelling, typing fast and my faux pas.

I shudder to think about an air force basic training that featured NRA propaganda. Teach the recruits that it's their right to blow away a government that oppresses them and I suppose you have just created a warrior of the highest caliber. Pun intended. herm

f you and all the other nutjobs think that rights don't come from the government--WTF do you care about what the USSC says?

Ummmm... because they DON'T come from the government. The government is in place simply to PROTECT those rights. I have interest in the USSC's decision in the sense that I don't take for granted that they actually WILL protect them.

Jefferson was very clear on his opinion of government and corrupting influence of power. Government should be monitored by the people to insure that they do their job correctly and don't step over the bounds.

As for the rest of your statement... poor attempt at Reductio ad absurdum argument. What the heck good would a nuke be to me in protecting my family from intruders? Do you really think I should nuke Washington if I don't like the way they rule?

For larger arms such as nukes and such, I would settle for more transparent civilian control of the military weapons. Since they are for common defense, make them commonly owned, and monitored. Not just in words but in fact.

I notice how you abandoned your argument about the meaning of "well regulated militia" in favor of this new (and more ridiculous" tack. What will your next absurdity be, I wonder?

I think Richard Henrty Lee is mistaken as are you

Ah yes.... the Framers must not have known what they REALLY meant.

Bwahahahahaahahahahaha

That is just CLASSIC, BBob. Priceless. Heh heh

BTW...

Actually the name is "Henry" to save you from future embarassment, even though you'll probably be pissed at the information.

Moomanfl

I haven't abandoned anything. I stand by everything I have said. Just because I don't mention something in every post doesn't mean I have abandoned it. I see you have abandoned your absurd Richard Henry Lee quote since I blew it out of the water.

I see you have no response to:

I think Richard Henrty Lee is mistaken as are you--the two are not interchangeable, and not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. If they had in mind what you say they had in mind---the sentence would read:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

OR

"The right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


That isn't what they wrote and that isn't what they meant.




Now answer the question if you can.

Where does the right to keep and bear arms come from?

;-)

Teach the recruits that it's their right to blow away a government that oppresses them and I suppose you have just created a warrior of the highest caliber.

Dunno, Herm.

I would say that the Revolutionary War heroes were warriors "of the highest caliber". And of course, that is exactly what they did.

Maybe you disagree and think America should still belong to England and we would be better under an oppressive monarchy.

I haven't abandoned anything. I stand by everything I have said.

Yes, the fool Captain that thinks it is better to go down on the bridge of his sinking ship rather than get in a life boat.

Have at it, BBob (aka Captain Edward John Smith).

That isn't what they wrote and that isn't what they meant.

You are right... they didn't say: "The right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Instead they said: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Who are "the people" they refer to, BBob?

Moomanfl

"Maybe you disagree and think America should still belong to England and we would be better under an oppressive monarchy."

Posted by moomanfl at 2008-03-19 06:13 PM


Many of the people in the colonies in those days were all for staying with the government of England. They were conservatives. People like you.

;-)

Many of the people in the colonies in those days were all for staying with the government of England. They were conservatives. People like you.

Funny how positions flip flop. It was the liberals like you that thought the people should ALL be armed against criminals and oppressive government back then. That government should be small. That men should fend for themselves. And that the Constitution should be interpreted in the manner in which it was approved, and not on what meaning you could squeak out out of it.

Funny how things change over 200+ years.

" Should I keep going? There are plenty of quotes from the Framers explaining what they meant. "

Posted by moomanfl

You omitted this one from the author of the second amendment, James Madison:

"A well regulated militia, consisting of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best, most natural defense of a free state."

That's from memory, so I may be off by a comma.

I've had rabid skunks, rattlesnakes, even a runaway adult chimp in the front pasture (last week). They were all dealt with by force of arms; With extreme prejudice.

Moomanfl

Why are you such a liar? Why do you think just outright lying is the way to win a point? Is that what you got from Bush? Let's try again liar.



That isn't what they wrote and that isn't what they meant.

You are right... they didn't say: "The right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Instead they said: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Posted by moomanfl at 2008-03-19 06:17 PM |


I see you fail to respond to

I think Richard Henrty Lee is mistaken as are you--the two are not interchangeable, and not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. If they had in mind what you say they had in mind---the sentence would read:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

OR

"The right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


That isn't what they wrote and that isn't what they meant.




Now answer the question if you can.

Where does the right to keep and bear arms come from?





Who are "the people" they refer to, BBob?

They are referring to the citizen soldiers--the militia--the well regulatd militia---the well regulated militia that was necessary to protect a free state. Not gangs of thugs or anyone who can buy a weapon. That's how you answer a question. Directly. Try is sometime. Try posting the question and directly beneath it--give your answer.

;-)

Moomanfl

Why are you such a liar?

That is rich, coming from you, BBob. A liar calling someone else a liar, is most likely lying. Why do you want to lie about me, BBob?

Ok... on this quote, I see I need to break it down for the mentally challenged (aka BBob):

That isn't what they wrote and that isn't what they meant.

You are right... they didn't say: "The right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Instead they said: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

"Funny how positions flip flop. It was the liberals like you that thought the people should ALL be armed against criminals and oppressive government back then."

Conservative thought and liberal thought never changes or flip flops over the centuries. A liberal STILL thinks that people should be allowed to arm themselves. An armed populace is a LIBERAL concept, not a conservative concept. Landowners didn't want their serfs armed better than they were., and as stated earlier---I'm all for the right to bear arms---more so than you. The point is, that the 2nd says nothing of the kind---it does not give the individual the right to bear arms.



"That government should be small."

That was never a liberal concept. The liberal concept is that government should be by the people and for the people---size was never a factor.


"That men should fend for themselves."

Again, that is not a liberal concept. Never was. The liberal concept is that men should help each other.


"And that the Constitution should be interpreted in the manner in which it was approved, and not on what meaning you could squeak out out of it."

Look who's talking about trying to sqeak something out of the words of the 2nd. You ignore all of the sentence and see only:

People have the right to bear arms.

You don't even see the part about not infringing on those rights. Then you say others are misinterpreting---seeing what they want to see.

;-)

Funny how things change over 200+ years.

They are referring to the citizen soldiers--the militia--the well regulatd militia---the well regulated militia that was necessary to protect a free state.

BBob, I see where you are getting confused.

The wording of the 2nd Amendment simply means this (and I will expand and paraphrase to make it clear)

A militia (well regulated at the time meaning "well armed and disciplined to fight) is necessary to insure we remain free. A militia is made up of the general populous. To have such a militia it is necessary that the population have the total freedom to own firearms, since that is what they would bring to battle if need be. Therefore we have to guarantee the right of every citizen to own these firearms.

Not hard to understand, and it fits with the words of the Framers, both within the Constitution, and in letters, debates, and writings outside of the Constitution.

The PEOPLE have the right to own firearms... period.

Glad to see we are in agreement finally.

"That government should be small."

That was never a liberal concept.

I see you need to have "liberal" and "conservative" defined for you and put in context. Not surprised since you seem to have a problem with both context and definitions.

liberal = one that generally seeks change.

conservative = one who opposes needless change.

At the time, the fore fathers sought change. They didn't like the system. They rebelled, won, and changed things. They were liberal.

Once it was changed to their satisfaction, they opposed needless change. At that point they become conservative by definition. After all, why would they want to change what they just did that they thought was good.

Today, those same men would be conservatives, since they (by their own words) opposed many of the changes that have been made. They would want to go back to the way they originally made it.

They wouldn't just all of a sudden say "Oh my GOD!!! You guys are right and we were wrong back then! Big government IS better!"

You don't even see the part about not infringing on those rights.

BBob,

The problem isn't that I didn't see it. I responded to it.

The problem is, that I am not gullible enough to fall for your tactics. See my response in my 6:07 where I addressed this attempt by you.

Moomanfl

I saw your 6:07. You said where rights DON'T come from.

My question was simple.

Where DO rights come from.

Pretty tricky tactic huh?

;-)

I saw your 6:07. You said where rights DON'T come from.

BBob... you are truly being a major idiot. No surprise there either.

Do I have to know the specific mechanism by which something is created in order to know where it didn't come from?

Take for example the Big Bang... where did the matter come from that makes the universe? I don't know... but I know it didn't come from Detroit.

I answered your question already above. Either address it, or don't. Your choice. If you don't understand my answer, that isn't my problem. Get an education.

Ok, BBob... got a few minutes while my Frankfurters are cooking. I am going to explain it to you in terms a 2nd grader would understand.

You say rights came from the government. But our government was created "BY THE PEOPLE (,for the people). Therefore where did our rights come from ultimately? From ourselves since we are "the people".

Our rights are inherent.

You make up your own little world don't you.

Not even remotely. But thanks for providing the definitions that prove my point.

liberal = "favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs."

conservative = "disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change."

The words it used were slightly different, but the ultimate definition remained the same.

Why would the Framers have suddenly wanted to "reform" that which they had just made? At that point they would have wanted to "preserve existing conditions" since they had set it up the way they wanted.

You say rights came from the government. But our government was created "BY THE PEOPLE (,for the people). Therefore where did our rights come from ultimately? From ourselves since we are "the people".

Our rights are inherent.

Posted by moomanfl at 2008-03-19 07:18 PM |


The rights you claim that come from "the people" and are "inherent" aren't worth a fart in a hurricane without the government.

No government--no rights. Need an example? Look at the killing fields of Cambodia--or the Kurds of northern Iraq---or the gulags of Russia.

Those people have the rights you claim. and the fart in the hurricane would keep them warmer.

But you did answer the question---finally.

Now, let's see how far your logic takes you before your theory falls apart.

If rights are inherent, and rights do not come from the government---why was there ever slavery in the United States? Didn't the slaves have those inherent rights you talk about?

If the rights you claim are inherent can't protect anyone---why do you think they are rights?

Try posting the question and then the answer--then read the two together and see if it makes any sense.

;-)

Naturally this topic has the most posts...

it's the MOST important thing going on in the world right now...

NOT.............

All the yahoo NRA Nazis must be in full force, shittin their pants....

Why would the Framers have suddenly wanted to "reform" that which they had just made? At that point they would have wanted to "preserve existing conditions" since they had set it up the way they wanted.


How many times do I have to answer this?

Your logic is as faulty as your logic. They did change it. The changes are called amendments. The amendments added to the liberal thoughts of the founders. The Bill of Rights reflects those changes and liberal thought--including the right to bear arms.



"Today, those same men would be conservatives, since they (by their own words) opposed many of the changes that have been made. They would want to go back to the way they originally made it."

You ignore the facts of the changes that were made in the amendments, and the words of Washington above. They wrote the Constitution to be able to be flexible and to change with the needs of the nation. They did not want things to always remain as they were. You ignore history, facts, and the Consitution.

True--almost---they rebelled because of liberal thought for a liberal future.

Wrong again, BBob. You are taking a quote from President Washiton that was well after the fact of the Revolution. They rebelled because they didn't like the oppressive government. But you would have learned that in history class. Guess you failed. No surprise there either.

To counter your quote of Washinton:

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." --Thomas Jefferson

"I own I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive." --Thomas Jefferson

Moomanfl

Rambling again?

Try answering the questions. Your deflections are tedious.

;-)

How many times do I have to answer this?

As many times as it takes you to finally get the answer right. So far, you have failed.

Try answering the questions. Your deflections are tedious.

Physician, heal thyself.

"I own I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive." --Thomas Jefferson


So would Jefferson have allowed monopolies and stock market manipulations? How about tainted food? How about unsafe products? How about out right lying about what your product will do? How about drugs--think Jefferson would have formed the DEA or would he have let freedon be the rule? Which agencies of this bloated government would Jefferson not have favored? Seems like he would have favored Truth in Advertising Laws.

"Advertisements... contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper."

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Nathaniel Macon, January 12, 1819
3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)


;-)

Moomanfl

What about my answer is incorrect? You fail to point out the discrepancy. Give it a shot.

What question have I failed to answer? Just because you don't like my answer doesn't mean I haven't answered your question.

Again--your deflections show your weakness of your view. Try answering the questions and pointing out the flaws in my statements rather than---nuh-uh--responses.

;-)

So would Jefferson have allowed monopolies and stock market manipulations?

No, he saw corporations as being just as bad (if not worse) than government for oppressing the people.

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country. " --Thomas Jefferson

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money,
first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. --Thomas Jefferson

What about my answer is incorrect?

Which incorrect answer do you refer to? You gave so many of them.

Just to get things straight here--I am the one for reading what the Constitution says.

Just to get things straight here--I am for the liberal concept of the individual right to keep and bear arms. That just isn't what the Constitution says.

Just to get things straight, it is conservatives who are trying to ignore what the Constitution says in the second amendment--even the part about--shall not be infringed---they are all about the conservative concept of infringing on your rights to bear arms. They want permits--registration--and a limit on the type arms you can have. Sounds like infringement to me, but you can call that rose anything you like.

;-)

Moomanfl


So would Jefferson have allowed monopolies and stock market manipulations?

"No, he saw corporations as being just as bad (if not worse) than government for oppressing the people."

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country. " --Thomas Jefferson

How do you think he would have done that? Fairy dust? I bet he would have bloated the government with the power to crush those monied corporations. Your post proves my point


"How about tainted food?"

So according to you--Jefferson would have had no problem--no fines or punishment for salmonella chickens regularly passing through the Supermarket. OK.


"How about unsafe products?"

Jefferson would have been OK with not testing for lead in childrens products. OK.


"How about out right lying about what your product will do?"

So Jefferson would have no problem with telling people any lie they can to get a sale. OK


"How about drugs--think Jefferson would have formed the DEA or would he have let freedon be the rule?"

So Jefferson would have let the drug trade flourish with no restristion. OK.


"Absolutely. I think he would have left it to the free market. Most of the problems with Big Pharma revolve around patents which are.... wait for it... government given and enforced. Something that again, Jefferson would have been against the government getting involved in."

So Jefferson would have let those who couldn't afford insurance die. OK.


Which agencies of this bloated government would Jefferson not have favored?

"None... but if you actually actually knew anything about Jefferson, you wouldn't have to ask. He made his position abundantly clear."

So Jefferson was basically an anarchist. OK



Seems like he would have favored Truth in Advertising Laws.

"Nope. He would have relied on competition, and the free market to take care of the problem. Lie about your product, lose public trust. Lose public trust, lose business. Simple, effective."

So, Jefferson would have any trick, any lie, poison food, any poor product to be put before the public without any regulation.(What if the competition is lying too) OK



"He believed that business should have no special rights whatsoever... and should not be given a voice in government at all."

Why should business care about a voice in the government? They can do as they please anyway according to your concept of Jefferson. What need would they have in your concept of Jefferson if they had no regulations to contend with? Can you answer?


"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money,
first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." --Thomas Jefferson

The private banks are backed by the federal government FDIC.


To me, it sounds like either Jefferson or you is an idiot. Guess who I'm putting my money on?

;-)

What about my answer is incorrect?

"Which incorrect answer do you refer to? You gave so many of them."

Posted by moomanfl at 2008-03-19 08:35 PM


Take your pick--any one of them--or all of them--its better than zero.

How do you think he would have done that? Fairy dust? I bet he would have bloated the government with the power to crush those monied corporations. Your post proves my point

Sorry, but you assume what methods he would have used, based off of your own ideology and limited imagination. The rest of your post was just fluff trying to bolster your own flawed premise.

BB...... IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT INFRINGMENT....and the 2nd amendment infringment....then what about your stance on 1st amendment infringments...you must be just as pissed...right

i MEAN...you do not really have the freedom of speech that is mentioned in the constitution....you have a freedom of speech that has restrictions and you have to have permits and stuff

You should stick to your moonbat conspiracy threads, beeb.

Just like on those, you refuse to acknowledge reality here.

You're the king of fact ignoring and the non sequitur.

You need serious help.

BB.... i think you are not pissed about the infringment of firearms....i think you are using the word infringment as a argument...to push for a radical view of what weapons can be given or allowed to the public

and if the government can restrict what arms you can have...then why cant the government infringe on you not being able to own a handgun just like they....infringe you on not having a nuke

BB... BECAUSE IF YOU REALLY BELIEVED THAT GOVERNMENT INFRINGMENT WAS SO BAD... AND AGAINST OUR FREEDOMS SO MUCH....you need to take the lead and revolt....gather your firearms and march to washington with your milita...and over throw our government....because that is your job as an AMERICAN...and that is what our founding father would have wanted

For anyone that is interested in the concept of "equal freedom" and "inherent rights" I will explain to the best of my ability. For those that already know this, either read it for whatever entertainment value it holds or skip it. For BBob, you won't understand it anyway. This is going to be a thought and logic exercise.

There is a planet with only one person on it. Nobody else visits it. Nobody else monitors it. Nobody else has any control over anything on it.

This man has total freedom. He can own a gun if he wants to. He can say what he wants when he wants. He can go where he wants, when he wants. He will live and die within nature by the choices he freely makes. He chooses when and if to work, and for how long. He chooses when and how to play, and for how long.

He can even live or not at his whim. In short, he makes his own rules for life. Total freedom. They are inherent because he has them by virtue of existing. Nobody gives them to him.

One day another person arrives. This person is just like him. Logic says that they have the same inherent rights the other person can do all of the same things the original man does.

By the process of reason, since both men were created equal in rights, we can deduce that Man Two is also able to live and die at his own whim.

There is one catch though that comes with there being more than one person on this planet now: Man One, in his total freedom to do what he wants, could kill Man Two. This type of decision on the part of Man One would encroach on the freedom of Man Two to live or die at his own whim, which is inherent by existing. That is to say, if left alone the decision is his.

It then becomes incumbent on Man Two to defend himself should Man One make the decision to do this. Man One is free to make the choice of attempting it.

Man Two, likewise in his freedom, could decide to take anything he wants from Man One. This would encroach on Man One's freedom to own what he wants which he has previously enjoyed. It is then incumbent on Man One to defend his ownership of these things. Man Two, however is still free to attempt to take them.

This is Law of the Jungle. The ultimate in freedom in a situation where more than one person exists. You are free to do anything, or at least make the attempt.

Eventually a third person arrives. They have all the same freedoms as the first two people. They could also kill or be killed, steal or be stolen from.

Instead however, this person is smart. Man Three talks to Man One and Man Two. Tired of the bickering they decide to make some rules. If one of the other men tries to murder or steal from another man, the other two will gang up on him. Under this threat the live relatively peacefully.

This is the origin of government on this planet. All men enjoy the same freedoms. Indeed, if they were by themselves on the planet they would have all the same freedoms they now enjoy. The government is simply there to keep the peace by keeping one man from encroaching on the other's freedom. Without this government, each man would still have the same rights, however they would be at risk of someone else trying to take those rights away.

In it's most basic principles, this is what our founding fathers were after. Total freedom with a minimum of rules to keep one man from stepping on another man's inherent rights.

If the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't negate the D.C. ban as unconstitutional or just sends it back to the lower court for reconsideration we might as well kiss the rest of the Bill of Rights goodbye.

End of story.

FUCKING BRAVO MOO....BRAVO!!!

As you can see from the above thought experiment, rights aren't given by government, we would still have the same rights. Our government in this country was created as a means to protect those rights from the attempted encroachment by others.

The government doesn't give the rights to us. How can it give something that would still exist without it?

How ever, BAD government can encroach on those inherent rights. You still have them, but the government can deny you the freedom to exercise those rights by force.

The idea that government is the source of those rights is ludicrous.

As per my example:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

As with men one through three, they were all created equal with the same rights: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. To secure those rights against others that would take them, they consented to be governed by some rules.

To answer the question of slavery... that is a matter of Law of the Jungle. In the above government of the three men they recognized each other's rights, and created rules to protect them. However, Man One and Man Two could just have easily banded together and over-powered Man Three to make him work for them. He would have been unable to overcome this assault on his inherent freedoms since he didn't have enough power to protect them. This would be an example of BAD government.

To say that you don't have these rights because someone bigger than you can take them from you is simply saying that you believe in "might over right". If that is the way you feel, you can try to take my rights after you get past my two friends: Mr. Smith & Mr. Wesson.

I agree with Moomanfl to a certain extent, especially in the case of the US and it's Constitution/Bill of Rights: We the people claim these rights and the gov't is merely a caretaker.

This, "To say that you don't have these rights because someone bigger than you can take them from you is simply saying that you believe in 'might over right'.", however, is our default foreign policy position and has been for some time- especially if the foreigners are overly tan.

BETLEG..WTF....how do you go from citizen of the united states of america liberties and right to foreign policy....you are going way off the mark in sticking to the thread

Judas-
I'm sorry. The Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence are to be viewed only in a domestic political context and are not to be taken seriously outside our borders. My bad, though if you try to argue that point you'll have a hard time cleaving to the inherent quality of freedom that those documents propose.

YEA SHOW ME WHERE IT SAYS....the united states has to protect the world

This, "To say that you don't have these rights because someone bigger than you can take them from you is simply saying that you believe in 'might over right'.", however, is our default foreign policy position and has been for some time- especially if the foreigners are overly tan.

Posted by BetelG at 2008-03-19 11:04 PM

BETLEG..WTF....how do you go from citizen of the united states of america liberties and right to foreign policy....you are going way off the mark in sticking to the thread

Posted by judas at 2008-03-19 11:08 PM

Actually, Judas, I don't mind. The thread was about the Supreme Court hearing a gun case so the thread was already way off the mark. His statement is just as on topic as the general discussion of inherent rights is.

BETELG,

While I don't agree with your generalization of "overly tan", I can understand your point. I don't agree with your conclusion, but I understand where you are coming from.

It isn't our DEFAULT foreign policy. There are plenty of situations where we could have stepped in, maybe even SHOULD have stepped in, but haven't. Darfur is one of those.

To validate your assessment, we would have to examine motive, and it is there that I feel we would really disagree. However I am all for America becoming isolationist once again, if I can be assured that I won't have to hear complaints that we should be doing more to intervene in the world.

Unfortunately once a country makes the decision to poke it's nose out of it's own door, even with the benign intention of simply helping, it becomes pretty much impossible to pull it's nose back in and finds itself meddling in all sorts of affairs.

You have a trade-off. We can either be involved in foreign affairs, and consequently creating ties and interests that must be protected outside our country, or we can be total isolationist even at the expense of letting less fortunate people and countries outside of ours suffer.

You can't have it both ways. Which is it?

Moomanfl-
So we could have invaded Iraq, occupied the Phillipines by force -exterminating hundreds of thousands, supported death squads in Central America, bombed the bejesus out of the population of SE Asia, dropped the second bomb on Japan, OR we could be total isolationists.

And those are the only choices?

I do like your erudite conclusion regarding military action. Unlike every other nation on earth throughout all human history,the US alone has first and only acted with the "benign intention of simply helping"

Warms my heart, dulls my mind.

And those are the only choices?

Answer your own question. If we were total isolationists, would those things have occurred?

Secondly, what ties and interests due to other outside involvements led up to them occurring? Although Japan is a little disingenuous of you since WE were attacked by THEM. Still it was our trade and diplomatic ties that precipitated Japan's decision to attack so I will give you a pass on that.

IN ORDER FOR AMERICANS.....to become isolationist....they will have to give up the worldly goods that make thier live comfortable...i do not see that happening anytime soon.....hell AMERICANS cant even get off oil....much less the good produced by China

"We can either be involved in foreign affairs, and consequently creating ties and interests that must be protected outside our country, or we can be total isolationist even at the expense of letting less fortunate people and countries outside of ours suffer."

Your choice is ridiculous, and doesn't deserve a serious response. On some level you know this.

About Japan, I always understood the first bomb. I would've probably done it had it been my choice. But the second? Would we have dropped the second bomb on whites? Seriously.

IN ORDER FOR AMERICANS.....to become isolationist.. they will have to give up the worldly goods that make thier live comfortable... i do not see that happening anytime soon... hell AMERICANS cant even get off oil... much less the good produced by China

I agree that it isn't likely, but I am all for the attempt. I don't agree that they would have to give up ALL the things they like though. There would certainly be quite a bit of the proverbial "belt tightening" going on though.

Moomanfl-
Damn. Are you really an isolationist? I hear all sorts of accusations, but have never actually met one. I'm sorry that I completely misread your angle.

Your choice is ridiculous, and doesn't deserve a serious response. On some level you know this.

I was laying out the reality of the situation. That is a bit different from saying you have a real choice.

For example, the only sure way to not get an STD or have a kid is to totally abstain from sex. Not realistic? Maybe. Still a valid point? Yes.

The point is, we are going to have outside ties of many varieties outside this country. Those give us a vested interest in world situations. That is going to mean we are going to wind up being involved, or having to take an interest in some things that you might not like. We will have to do some things to protect those interests that you might not like.

If you want to do things differently, you are welcome to try and put the toothpaste back in the tube (become isolationsists). Good luck with that.

Just because I recognize the reality doesn't mean I like it any more than you. I am just not going to bitch about it and endlessly scream "Why?????" when the answer is pretty damn simple: It is because we are not isolationsist.

Moomanfl-
Damn. Are you really an isolationist? I hear all sorts of accusations, but have never actually met one. I'm sorry that I completely misread your angle.

Purely idealistically... yes I am. Realistically... no.

Idealistically I would prefer that our country minds it's own business and let other country's mind theirs. Let them pass or fail on their own, and likewise us. I think we would have done rather well.

Realistically, I know that isn't going to happen short of a major catastrophic resetting of the world stage. Collectively we have too many ties; we want to much now. It isn't going to happen.

"I agree that it isn't likely, but I am all for the attempt. I don't agree that they would have to give up ALL the things they like though. There would certainly be quite a bit of the proverbial "belt tightening" going on though."

America, with about 5% of the world's population, cannot consume 25% of the world's oil forever. And the same holds for other natural resources. That necessary "belt tightening" wouldn't be so bad if Americans could kick their addiction to consumerism. What percentage of the junk on Walmart shelves do people *really* need?

Unfortunately, while I agree with Mooman that the attempt should be made, it is probably doomed to failure. It means an end to the Empire, and empires don't go quietly.

Moomanfl-
I see.

My point was that we, as a global military power have at times been imperialistic, self-serving, avaricious, and helping this along was often racism, whereby we were able to justify our actions by viewing the others as less than human.

Way off the topic, I know, but as long as you're here and you seem to be rather sane and knowlegeable, does that make me "anti-American"?

Unfortunately, while I agree with Mooman that the attempt should be made, it is probably doomed to failure. It means an end to the Empire, and empires don't go quietly.

While I agree that it would be doomed to failure outside of the already mentioned catastrophic resetting of the world stage... I don't think any "Empire" has much to do with it.

Even on the mutually agreed benign ties (trade and diplomatic), we have too much interests outside of this country, and too many wants from inside that are dependent on those outside ties. It just isn't realistic.

However I am glad to see some agreement with the sentiment though.

This, "To say that you don't have these rights because someone bigger than you can take them from you is simply saying that you believe in 'might over right'.", however, is our default foreign policy position and has been for some time- especially if the foreigners are overly tan.

Posted by BetelG at 2008-03-19 11:04 PM | Reply


The rights you claim aren't worth a fart in a hurricane without the government.

No government--no rights.

If the government says you have no rights---you have no rights.

Ask the American Indians

Ask the dissidents of China

Ask the Japanese Americans of WWII

Ask the people of Darfur

Look to the killing fields of Cambodia

All those people had the rights you claim. The rights you claim did not help them. The rights you claim are worthless.

"What percentage of the junk on Walmart shelves do people *really* need?" - Nulli

Is it really WalMart that has what we dont need? Or is it you just don't like them?

Wouldn't it be better said that the Apple store, B&O, The Gap, CircuitCity et al, have all the junk we don't need....

To be really efficient, perhaps getting rid of all ethnic stores would be good too....no diverse culture, we all just wear the same shoes, pants, and hats, eat the same food goods.....

A monoculture.....great idea....

My point was that we, as a global military power have at times been imperialistic, self-serving, avaricious, and helping this along was often racism, whereby we were able to justify our actions by viewing the others as less than human.

Way off the topic, I know, but as long as you're here and you seem to be rather sane and knowlegeable, does that make me "anti-American"?

No, it doesn't make you anti-American in my view. Neither does the actions of this country at various times (to pick a point we both agree on, slavery), make it evil. It simply means that you are, and the country by-and-large, human.

Sometimes the group does things the individual doesn't like. Sometimes the individual does things the group doesn't like. And yet the world turns.

We can, and should, strive to better ourselves. However, we should never fool ourselves into thinking that we are going to every have anything even remotely approaching Utopia (ie. always fair, always moral, always just). What you think is fair, someone else is most likely going to disagree.

While I don't like it. I am aware of it. I will fight for what I must, but I know my limitations and will pick my battles accordingly.

The rights you claim aren't worth a fart in a hurricane without the government.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-03-20 12:18 AM

Speaking of "a fart in a hurricane": BBob speaks.

"While I agree that it would be doomed to failure outside of the already mentioned catastrophic resetting of the world stage... I don't think any "Empire" has much to do with it."


Empire and capitalism has everything to do with it. There is no example of capitalist economies voluntarily adopting no-growth policies, much less an actual reduction in living standards. The irony lies in that Empire is necessary to to extract resources from the rest of the world in order to maintain consumption, yet the costs of the Empire and its military machine is itself a huge burden, as is seen with the Iraq adventure costing 3 trillion dollars plus. This state of affairs is unsustainable.

AGREED...DAMN GOOD POST MOO....MAN ALTHOUGH ITS VERY HARD TO FIND GOOD CIVIL CONVERSTAIONS AT DRUDGE....IM GLAD IT STILL HAPPENS

"Wouldn't it be better said that the Apple store, B&O, The Gap, CircuitCity et al, have all the junk we don't need...."

All of them. Do you really *need* anything from these stores? If so, you've been brainwashed into a consuming drone.

Nobody is advocating monoculture except those like you who love consumerism. In fact, the stores you mention are a perfect example of monoculture.

FUNNY how AMERICA has a debt problem followed by greed and manage to blame it on the government

GREED... is the car you drive....the TV you watch and the computer you comunicate with...the power America hold is by the worldly goods they buy

Empire and capitalism has everything to do with it.

Empire and capitalism are two different things. You can have one without the other (ie. A communistic empire, etc).

Which, or both, do you disagree with? If it is just the "Empire" part, then we have agreement. I don't like it either. I simply don't agree that we are in one in the traditional sense.

If you disagree with capitalism, this is where we part ways. I think Jefferson had the right idea. A free market, with isolationist foreign policy. In other words, capitalism within your country, but don't get involved outside. This however, as he realized, takes diligence. It is just as realistic, or even more-so, than any other government model.

If you think you know one that realistically protects the same level of freedoms... please fill me in.

"To say that you don't have these rights because someone bigger than you can take them from you is simply saying that you believe in "might over right". If that is the way you feel, you can try to take my rights after you get past my two friends: Mr. Smith & Mr. Wesson."

Excellent post and point, moon.

Men had these Inherent rights prior to governments.

If you believe the likes of beeb and herm, it's governments that bequeath said rights.

That's BS.

My friends are Colt and Kalashnikov. Throw in the main home defense weapon, a Savage semi auto 16 gauge with a variable choke.

"A free market, with isolationist foreign policy. In other words, capitalism within your country, but don't get involved outside. "


I understand your point of view. Problem is, it's impossible. Capitalism has a growth imperative. It's a grow or die system. There are no examples of capitalist systems limiting themselves in the way you and I deem desirable. Capitalism always seeks to expand, to find new resources to extract, new markets for its goods. Thus, there's a natural tendency to Empire. You can't separate the two, without radically reforming capitalism itself.

Excellent post and point, moon.

Men had these Inherent rights prior to governments.

If you believe the likes of beeb and herm, it's governments that bequeath said rights.

That's BS.

Glad you liked it... and that you agree.

The problem isn't that governments bequeath these rights. The problem is that over time they (governments) forget who, ultimately, is in control over whether they have any power at all. It is the people.

We proved that in 1776, and France proved that a few years later. It has been proven various times both before and after. Governments need reminding from time to time. I think that is a paraphrase of Jefferson (damn that guy was smart).

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the Blood of Patriots and tyrants it is it's natural manure" --Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President.

There are no examples of capitalist systems limiting themselves in the way you and I deem desirable.

Agreed. There isn't. There isn't ANY governmental system that has limited itself that way. The fault is with human nature. We are greedy.

Whether that is passive greed (ie. we just want more and better stuff), or active greed (ie. we want YOUR stuff)... it still remains a problem of inherent greed. Sometimes that greed turns into greed for power. Regardless, to date, this has been the best form of government, but it is still limited by the flaws of the creature implementing it.

As I said before though, capitalism and Empire are two different things. Idealistically you can have one without the other. The thing that brings them together isn't the system itself, it is human nature.

Doesn't Washington DC have the highest murder rate, if not it is up there. I guess no one can kill the murder, that would be illegal.

To all the killers in Washington DC, you are smarter than the politicians, you know were to hunt people without getting shot.

To all the killers in Washington DC, you are smarter than the politicians, you know were to hunt people without getting shot.

Indeed.

Care to take a wager on whether or not the crime rate drops after this ruling? By all accounts it seems that the USSC is going to overturn the ban.

They have already indicated that they believe in the individual right to bear arms (so sorry BBob and Herm, but it seems the Supremes don't agree with you).

MOO....your 12:48 was "ON SPOT"... A POWERFUL CENTRAL GOVERNEMT and LIMITED POLITICAL RECOURSE...is what falls democracies....Republican and Democrat parties HOLD majority of the POWER with little middle ground choice...the PEOPLE will FAIL their own nation by doing this

"About Japan, I always understood the first bomb. I would've probably done it had it been my choice. But the second? Would we have dropped the second bomb on whites? Seriously."

Of course we would have. It's ridiculous to say otherwise.

We didn't adhere to the present day concept of measured response.

We fire bombed the hell out of Dresden over several days, killing untold thousands.

They looked like whitey to me.

If it was Germany instead of Japan, it would've been prudent to do the same thing.

Whether it was racial or not is irrelevant. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of state terrorism, pure and simple.

To Nullifidian,

Thanks for the lively debate on the subject. Unfortunately I must sleep sometime, and it seems that now is such a time.

I will leave with this parting thought (and it may be a rather long one in two or more parts and subjects):

On greed -- Natural selections says that we all adapt to survive. Greed is a by-product of that in humans.

To explain, humans have the tendency to resist personal complacency. I believe that this was an evolutionary advantage. By not being complacent, we constantly strove to better our surroundings and living conditions in order to thrive. Those that didn't do so were weeded out of the gene pool either though not having enough to attract a mate, or not doing enough to adapt.

This same phenomena explains greed. We aren't complacent with what we have. We strive to get more, be more dominant (get power), etc. Getting more may mean taking it from others, or sacrificing something else we consider less desirable.

This is part of the core of human nature, and it colors everything we touch whether that be the governments we create or how we run our household.

Thomas Jefferson was a smart guy (as I believe I have mentioned). And he understood this. He realized that the country he helped build was on tenuous ground, and he preached diligence and caution in the powers we give to the government, not just at the time, but in the future as well.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." --Thomas Jefferson

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it. --Thomas Jefferson

Agreed, good discussion, Mooman. I'll respond to your last post in due course.

Is there a difference between own and bear arms ?

Funny how Redneckville sees this as them saying it's an evolving document. It is plain to anyone's eyes that arms for militias is no longer relevant and it would be nice for the SCOTUS to give us an idea of how the 2nd amendment should be read today.

Posted by everlong

No longer relevent? The threat of an armed rebelion of the people in the USA may not seam relevent to you but what about your grand children. Imagine a USA where the gov has no checkes and ballances. Where the gov run economy chashes. Where the congress changes tax laws to bring in more revenue which further represses the people. How about a gov that shows up at your town council meeting and just starts shooting people because you didn't get their premision to assemble? You think history doesen't ever repeat it's self? This is not a Left or Right issue. Things as the founders saw them may not seam relevent to you now but they may someday. These guys had first class minds and they understood their world. It's not that different from the world today. The technology may have changed but human nature has not.

Posted by moomanfl at 2008-03-18 04:54 PM | Reply | Flag

Great post Moonman

Cheers,
Walt

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of state terrorism, pure and simple.

Posted by nullifidian

By your definition, all (both sides engaged this) of the carpet-bombimg campaigns were acts of state terrorism.

Perform a google image search for "Dresden" - it looks like the aftermath of a nuclear holocaust, even though the destruction was done via early 1940's conventional explosives.

Nullifidian,

Who was it, exactly, who decided (rightly, in my opinion) to nuke a couple of small Japanese cities for effect? What was his party affiliation?

I'm always amazed that people care about the method of killing lots of innocent people. It's ok to drop incendiaries on Tokyo and kill a bunch more people, but nuke 10 people, and everybody gets excited.

Just more evidence that the radical left is merely a wacko religion which has an irrational dislike of nuclear options, both for weapons and power. Ironically, this has led to much more burning of coal in the US....Fortunately, CO2 emissions don't actually have an effect on climate, or they'd be responsible for the mythical human-induced global warming!

The second Bomb was dropped to let them know we had more of em. And using them when we did probably saved the entire world. Imagine if the first use had been during the cold war.

On Jefferson, he was an idealist of the highest order. His vision was of an agrarian society made up of educated "gentleman farmers". Like most idealists he was blind to exactly how worthless most people really are.

The USSC is to decide if Americans have the individual right to bear arms, and people are still ignorant enough to think that rights do not come from the government.

CLUE: If the government says you don't have the right to bear arms---you don't have the right to bear arms.

Clue: If the government says you have the right to bear arms---you have the right to bear arms.

CLUE: You have rights when the government says you have rights.

CLUE: You have no rights when the government says you have no rights.

Hey BBob,

The government exists because we allow it to exist. Thankfully we are not ruled by a band of thugs (yet)
so your entire premise within the context of this country is wrong. And that where we get back to the crux of this entire thread. The 2nd amendment is there to make sure that we can tell the thugs to kindly go fuck themselves.

I'm so glad I don't have to join a well regulated militia just pack my Rosco.

Salaryman


All rights come from the government--no matter what government is in place. In China--all rights come from the Chinese government. In Russia, all rights come from the Russian government. In the US, all rights come from the US government. Including the right of free speech.

If the US government says you have no free speech---guess what--you have no free speech.

If the US government says you and your family have to live in a concentratin camp, guess where you and your family will be living? CLUE--it rhymes with boncentration bamp.

If you think no rights come from the govenment, and simply materialize from the Rights Fairy--you are mistaken. I tried to give you a clue. I guess you just don't get it.

;-)

BBob you are an idiot, that is all.

BuffaloBob sees "rights come from the government" like a child that found a hammer.....everything is a nail.....

BBob you are an idiot, that is all.

Posted by Salaryman at 2008-03-20 12:56 PM


When you can't express yourself in a debate--guess what--you lose.

;-)

Andreamackris sees "rights come from the Rights Fairy".

;-)

BBob,

You can take your "rights come from the government" and shove it up your fart hole.

That could be either your ass, or your mouth as apparently they are both equal in your case since:

1. they both stink
2. you are liable to talk out of either one.
3. what comes out of either one has about the same relevance.

BBob just doesn't seem to understand that saying our rights come from the government is the exact same logic as saying you got your eye and hair color from your kids.

His command of logic is so pathetic it would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

Moomanfl

Where did the right for black people to vote come from? How about the right of women to vote? Why can't gays marry(hint: the government says they don't have that right).

Why are dissidents in China jailed if they have the right to Free Speech? Oops--their government says they don't have the right to Free Speech. Maybe they should call your Right Fairy to set things straight.

Why were thousands of innocent United States citizens forced into concentration camps with all rights suspended in WWII? Because the government said they had no more rights. Maybe they should have asked the Rights Fairy for some assisstance.

Repeating your nonsense about rights coming from the people just makes you look foolish. The government tells you all rights come from the people---as they tell you what your rights are.

"Andreamackris sees "rights come from the Rights Fairy".

;-)

- BuffaloBob

Andrea sees rights coming from those that can enforce them.

Might makes right....

For instane although the government gives the "right" of freedom of speech. I could not practice it "at home". Why is that ?

Moomanfl

You can take your "rights come from the government" and shove it up your fart hole.

That could be either your ass, or your mouth as apparently they are both equal in your case since:

1. they both stink
2. you are liable to talk out of either one.
3. what comes out of either one has about the same relevance.

Posted by moomanfl at 2008-03-20 01:13 PM | Reply


I see you concede the point.

;-)

When you can't express yourself in a debate--guess what--you lose.

No blob I expressed myself very well succinct and to the point. Your ridiculous argument that you repeat despite being refuted over and over makes you an idiot.


Dictionary:
idiot
(d'-'t) pronunciation


n.

1. A foolish or stupid person.
2. A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.

[Middle English, ignorant person, from Old French idiote, from Latin idita, from Greek idits, private person, layman, from idios, own, private.]

see definition 1 above. Get it now?

I see you concede the point.

Not at all. Again that is your failure of logic. You would have had to make an actual point in order for me to concede to one. You haven't.

I was simply pointing out the obvious in that post.

With your head up your ass it makes it all that more difficult to distinguish between the two since the relative positions are the same.

Might makes right....


Posted by AndreaMackris at 2008-03-20 01:31 PM

You are exactly correct. Whoever has the power makes the rules. It is society. In your home--whoever has the power makes the rules--all the rules--even whether others live or die. However, if there is a power that they fear--like the police---it may keep them from killing you when they get pissed. No police---guess what.

The police have power and could come in your home and rob and kill you except they fear a larger power--other police and the army. The army could take over everything, except the army is in control of commanders who fear their superiors.

Of course over all, you can claim that your vote overcomes all these threats. yeah right. Tell that to the tank commander that's about to blow your ass away if the government decides you are a terrorist.

BBob,

You just proved with each post that you don't understand what the founding fathers were saying. Even my grade school kids understand this better than you.

Might can deny you the ability to exercise your inherent freedoms. That doesn't give you any less right to expect those freedoms.

We are talking about the fundamental difference between good and evil here. Good respects those inherent freedoms and doesn't try to impede you. Evil trys to restrict those freedoms for it's own gain.

Without governement, we all have the same freedoms (rights). Therefore a government we create can't give us something we already have.

Neither can it take them away. It can only prevent you from exercising them.

Maybe you don't believe in good and evil. Fair enough. It seems you see no difference between Ghandi and Hitler.

That makes you an idiot.

Moomanfl

Let's see your logic. All you have is insults and NU-UHHH arguments.

Here--let's see your logic

The right of Free Speech comes from people
The Chinese are people
The people of China have Free Speech

It seems your logic is false since people in China are jailed if the government doesn't like what you are saying or writing.

Let's see my logic

The right of Free Speech comes from the government
The government of China says people do not have the right of Free Speech.
The people of China do not have Free Speech

Seems true to me.

;-)

The right of Free Speech comes from people
The Chinese are people
The people of China have Free Speech

The Chinese people created their government, and therefore restricted their freedom of speech by their own free will.

Likewise, just as we did in 1776, and the French did a few years later, they are free to fight to get those freedoms back.

BuffaloBob,

You ever watch the Sopranos? Who distrbues rights in the Mafia? Sure they were afraid of the "police", but the "police" were also afraid of them.

Also you have mentioned Darfur, where there is no "governments", thus no rights. My theory supposes that there are rights in Darfur, they are confired by might. Your idea that "Rights come from the government" is a subset of the theory "might makes right".

Also you have mentioned Darfur, where there is no "governments", thus no rights. My theory supposes that there are rights in Darfur, they are confired by might. Your idea that "Rights come from the government" is a subset of the theory "might makes right".

Andrea,

You are basically here, just rephrasing what BBob is saying. Let me correct you both.

In Darfur, there is no government. Everybody enjoys equal freedoms.

Unfortunately there are in a "two man", Law of the Jungle" state right now per my thought experiment above.

One man exercises this freedom by encroaching on another man's freedom. It then becomes incumbant on the the other man to protect that which he has a right to expect.

Andreamackris

Read the first line of my last post to you.

Whoever has the power is the government. Whoever has the power makes the rules. Your point about Darfur agrees with mine. The people with the guns have the rights, and they decide who else has rights--or not. The people they decide have no rights--have no rights.

BBob's Guide to Logic

1. State premise
2. Ignore refutations.
3. Reword or restate premise.
4. Go to #2 and repeat ad nauseum.

BBob's Guide to Logic

1. State premise
2. Ignore refutations.
3. Reword or restate premise.
4. Go to #2 and repeat ad nauseum.

Ooops... made a mistake.

There should be "post youtube.com video" somewhere in that guide.

Moomanfl

You say what he says and what I say. Whoever has the power makes the right. If you have no power--you have no right. That is why people get shot in the head. That's why dissidents sit in jail in China. That's why there was slavery in this country. Whoever has the power is the government, and there are lots of governments. Your house is a government--your city--your state--your country. In order for you to do anything, you have to conform to their rules of what your conduct can consist of.

And I didn't see your logic diagram. chicken?
:-)

You say what he says and what I say. Whoever has the power makes the right. If you have no power--you have no right.

revised #2 in the above guide:

#2 Ignore refutations or claim they agreed with you.

Whoever has the power makes the right.

yeah you keep pissing me off and I will pop a cap in yer ass... does that make me right?

Moomanfl

Nu Uhh isn't a refutation.. let's see your logic diagram.

All rights come from people
people have all rights.
The Chinese are people
The Chinese have all rights.

False.

;-)

yeah you keep pissing me off and I will pop a cap in yer ass... does that make me right?

Posted by donnerboy at 2008-03-20 02:34 PM

Right of what?

Moomanfl

You keep ignoring the refutations. Got logic? Have some more.

All rights come from people
Free Speech is a right
All people have free speech

False

;-)

BBob,

You are ignoring something important.

All rights come from people.
People create governments
Governments derive power from people.
Governments can only do what people let them do.

True.

You consistently leave the bits out of your logic that don't jibe with your premise. Bad logic on your part.

Governments can have neither more nor less power than the people give it since it is their creation and only exists by their collective consent.

Now ignore this post and restate your original premise. :-)

BTW... all people DO have free speech.

They can say what they want, when they want.

Under some governments they may be punished for doing so, but they can still do it.

It is the people that gave this power to the government by collective consent.

Therefore....

The people can also TAKE this power from the government my collective consent.

Moomanfl

First, you have to refute my argument, like I'm about to do with yours.

All rights come from people
Free Speech is a right
All people have free speech

False


Now it's your turn.

People create governments
you and I are people
we create governments.

False.



Governments derive power from people
The government of Darfur got its power from people
The people of Darfur want the government to shoot them.

False.


Governments can only do what people let them do
you and I are people
the government can only do what we let them do

False.

Your premises have been refuted.

your turn.

;-)

Blob do understand that a square is a rectangle but that not all rectangles are squares?

Just because you typed something doesn't make it a refutation. You actually have to use valid logic to make it one.

All rights come from the people that create the government.

The government isn't some mystical god that just magically springs into being.

If a man wants to be king, he can't just declare himself such and the power magically is bestowed on him. He has to get people to agree that he is indeed the king. Then he has to get people to agree what his power is as the king.

Likewise with all forms of government.

If the people don't like the king, then they can collectively decide that he is no longer the king.

Poof... his power is gone. He can still call himself a king, but without the people to back that up he is just one man ranting about his royalty.

My original premise stands.

Moomanfl

Poof... his power is gone

And the magic Rights Fairy makes everything OK.

That worked so well in Germany, Cambodia, Russia, Darfur. Maybe you can give the Rights Fairy the address so he can go Poof and make everything all right.

You have no logic to back up your Rights Fairy. The history of the world and the present proves you to be in a fantasy world. Logic proves you wrong also. If you have no logic--you have no point. Get it? Got logic? No? Get some. Take this with you to know what you are looking for.

All rights come from people
Free Speech is a right
All people have free speech

False


You say they can speak even though they will be punished. The it isn't FREE then is it. There is a price to pay. Something with a price is not FREE.

With your "logic" you could say you have the right to rob a bank.

;-)

ONE of the big flaws of BBob's argument is his concept of what constitutes "governance" or being governed.

Take another little thought experiment as an extension of my above one...

The group on this little planet has grown. There are now 10 people on this planet, and due to the complexities more rules have been created by collective consent.

After a while, a rule is proposed that a house can only contain 1 room. The reason for the rule isn't important since we aren't discussing morality.

What IS important is that not everyone agrees. Theres is a large debate about this rule. It gets very heated that the result is that they are split into two factions: Group A which is composed of 6 people and want only 1 room per house, and Group B that is composed of 4 people and want 2 rooms per house.

Group A has the numbers and has might.
Group B still has the freedom however to defy this rule.

They do so and continue to build and live in houses that have 2 rooms. Are they still being governed in the same collective as Group A? No. At this point, for all intents and purposes they are under their own governance.

At this point the two groups are back to the initial state of "Man Two" in my previous thought experiment. That is to say they are in Law of the Jungle mode. The two groups are virtually indistinguishable from two people with equal freedom and no agreement of rules.

Group A decides that they don't like this and attempt to bring Group B under compliance by force. The method they choose to do this is by burning down one of Group B's houses.

Group B has a few choices at this time. They can comply and add themselves to the collective will of governance by Group A... or they can continue to do things the way they want.

They choose the latter.

Group A is not pleased and decide to escalate things. They decide to exercise their superior numbers and kill one of the members of Group B.

Does that make Group B automatically governed? No it doesn't. They still have some choices: Submit to the collective governance of Group A, or govern themselves as they wish.

They choose the latter once again.

In reality, it doesn't matter what Group A does as long as Group B decides to do things their own way. Group A hasn't governed them, they have only attempted to. They can kill off all of Group B, but that doesn't mean that Group B was governed. They were merely murdered. Big difference.

Governance requires agreement of all to work. You have to submit to it.

In the end, Group B decides to leave. They go to a place far enough away that Group A is no longer inclined to put forth the effort to try and govern them.

Thus, two nations are born.

Get a clue, BBob.

Poof... his power is gone

And the magic Rights Fairy makes everything OK.

You are the only one talking about fairies, BBob.

In real logic, it was the people that took his power away, just as they gave it to him in the first place.

You are the only one advocating magical creation of power.

Moomanfl

What is your original premise. It seems to change. Is it now:

All rights come from the people that create the government.

Is that it? Are you willing to stand by that statement and for sure make that your premise? Correct it, if it is not what your premise is.

You could even follow with some logic if you can--I plan to.

:-)

You say they can speak even though they will be punished. The it isn't FREE then is it. There is a price to pay. Something with a price is not FREE.

BBob,

Your statement would only work if the word "free" only has one definition.

Clue.... it doesn't.

Moomanfl

Which group were the colonials that wanted to stay with England Group E or Group F ?

;-)

All rights come from the people that create the government.

Is that it? Are you willing to stand by that statement and for sure make that your premise? Correct it, if it is not what your premise is.

Yes it is.

As my above thought experiment showed, Group B refused to give Group A the right to impose their rules.

They refused to be Governed by Group A.

What part of your addled brain didn't understand that?

You could even follow with some logic if you can--I plan to.

That would be a new tactic on your part. Something I highly doubt you can accomplish.

Your claims of logic so far have been woefully inadequate and flawed, as have been your attempts to understand logic presented to you.

Moomanfl

Which group were the colonials that wanted to stay with England Group E or Group F ?

;-)

Neither. If you had the ability to grasp basic concepts you would understand that.

Why don't you tell me?

HINT: *flashing lights*Group A, since they were consenting to be governed by Group A.*flashing lights*

Moomanfl

All rights come from the people that created the government.
The government of the United States was created by the Constitutional Convention.
All the people of the colonies were part of the Constitutional Convention.

False.

Isn't this fun?

Everybody has a right to live of a life of quiet dignity and respect, free of unreasonable exploitation or want.

Our rights are inalienable and inherent.

Nobody gives them to you, you are born with them.

They are simply recognised by all sentient creatures of conscience.

What people are or should be given is an enviroment in which those rights are recognised, respected and realised.

That is the purpose of government and society.

Capiche?

Sheesh!

Be Well.

Moomanfl

What happens when Group A kills Group B?

Isn't this fun?

;-)

Isn't this fun?

Watching you make a total fool of yourself WOULD be fun, however it is much too easy and takes too little time to really be of much entertainment value.

Seems you have reverted to your guide:

BBob's Guide to Logic

1. State premise and/or post youtube.com video
2. Ignore refutations or claim they agreed with you.
3. Reword or restate premise.
4. Go to #1 or #2 as whim dictates and repeat ad nauseum.

Dethspud

Our rights are inalienable and inherent.

Posted by dethspud at 2008-03-20 04:55 PM | Reply

Well aren't we special. Where did we get these rights and why don't they apply to the people of Darfur? Seems like there's some alienating going on.

Makes you wonder why those Japanese Americans were tossed into a concentration camp when they had all those inalienable rights. Maybe they aren't so inalienable.

;-)

Moomanfl

Why don't you post some logic? Why not refute my logic rather than try your moronic insults. Weakling.

;-)

Well aren't we special.

Thanx fer noticing!

Where did we get these rights

At birth.

and why don't they apply to the people of Darfur?

Having rights and having them enforced are two different matters.

Seems like there's some alienating going on

Just figuring this out now?

Wow!

Be Well.

Seems like there's some alienating going on

Just figuring this out now?

Wow!

Be Well.

Posted by dethspud at 2008-03-20 05:10 PM

Then you must be conceding the point that the rights are not inalienable.

-1 for Spud.

As to the second---BORN with them? WTF is that. The rights you claim we are BORN with aren't worth a fart in a hurricane without the government.


I guess you are one of those people who could stand next to a corpse in Darfur and tell me about his "right to life' and say that he had it--but it just wasn't enforced. The kicker is you think you make sense.

Rights without value aren't rights---they are wishes.

Moomanfl

Why don't you post some logic? Why not refute my logic rather than try your moronic insults. Weakling.

;-)

Why is it when BBob post things like this I wind up imagining Flea from Red Hot Chili Peppers in the role of Needles from Back to the Future.

Needles: Come on... Stick your card in the slot and I'll handle it. Unless you want everyone in the division to think your... Chicken...
Marty McFly: NOBODY CALLS ME CHICKEN NEEDLES, NOBODY!

Unfortunately, he really seems to expect that someone is going to play the Marty McFly to his Needles.

Pathetic.

From what I have seen from the transcripts, it isn't looking good for the gun grabbers.

Rights without value aren't rights---they are wishes.

Yup... here we go round the mulberry bush.

BBob's Guide to Logic

1. State premise and/or post youtube.com video
2. Ignore refutations or claim they agreed with you.
3. Reword or restate premise.
4. Go to #1 or #2 as whim dictates and repeat ad nauseum.

Moonmanfl

Was that your logic or just more ad hominum--oh yeah--that's all you got.

As to the McFly reference --it was deliberate--if you remember my chicken? Mainly because you seem incapable of any logic yet you insist you are the master of logic. Let's see some McFly. chicken?

;-)

BBob's Guide to Logic

1. State premise and/or post youtube.com video
2. Ignore refutations or claim they agreed with you.
3. Reword or restate premise.
4. Go to #1 or #2 as whim dictates and repeat ad nauseum.

Posted by moomanfl at 2008-03-20 05:21 PM


BBob's Guide to Logic

1. State premise and/or post youtube.com video
2. Ignore refutations or claim they agreed with you.
3. Reword or restate premise.
4. Go to #1 or #2 as whim dictates and repeat ad nauseum.

Posted by moomanfl at 2008-03-20 04:59 PM | Reply


BBob's Guide to Logic

1. State premise
2. Ignore refutations.
3. Reword or restate premise.
4. Go to #2 and repeat ad nauseum.

Ooops... made a mistake.

There should be "post youtube.com video" somewhere in that guide.

Posted by moomanfl at 2008-03-20 02:24 PM |



BBob's Guide to Logic

1. State premise
2. Ignore refutations.
3. Reword or restate premise.
4. Go to #2 and repeat ad nauseum.

Posted by moomanfl at 2008-03-20 02:21 PM | Reply

I repeat ad nauseum?

Why don't you simply restate your logic to refute? Oh yeah--you couldn't do it.

You so easy. Isn't this fun? Got logic? Doesn't look like it.

;-)

Moomanfl

If you disagree with the statement

Say why.

Other than saying I'm stupid and repeating myself--can you explain your logic?

You say the dissidents of China have the right to Free speech, even though they are in prison. I say they have no Free Speech. Can you explain the value of their right to Free Speech?

You say the people of Darfur have a right to life even though they are being slaughtered. I say they have no right to lief. Can you explain the value of their right to life when they are corpses?

Can you use a little logic?

;-)

I say they have no Free Speech.

So then you are fine with them being killed or imprisoned for speaking? No objections?

I say they have no right to lief.

So then you are fine with them being killed. No objections?

say they have no Free Speech.

"So then you are fine with them being killed or imprisoned for speaking? No objections?"

Not at all. I'm simply stating facts. Your poor logic skills are showing.





I say they have no right to lief.

"So then you are fine with them being killed. No objections?"

Again--simply stating a fact is not an agreement with the action. Do you think the reporters of 911 were in agreement with the attackers?



Now--care to address the points?

You say the dissidents of China have the right to Free speech, even though they are in prison. I say they have no Free Speech. Can you explain the value of their right to Free Speech?

You say the people of Darfur have a right to life even though they are being slaughtered. I say they have no right to lief. Can you explain the value of their right to life when they are corpses?

Can you use a little logic?

;-)

"So then you are fine with them being killed or imprisoned for speaking? No objections?"

Not at all.

According to you, they don't have that right, so it can't be wrong to imprison them for something they have no right to do.

So why aren't you ok with them being imprisoned?

"So then you are fine with them being killed. No objections?"

Again--simply stating a fact is not an agreement with the action.

According to you, they have no right to live. If they don't have this right, then how can it be wrong to take away something they have no right to?

Why wouldn't you agree with them being killed?

Do YOU care to answer the questions? You brought up the philosophy that we have no rights except those given by government so I am exploring that. Got a problem with my doing so?

Moomanfl

I have answered your questions. Stating facts does not mean you agree with the action. Can you understand that statement?

Are you going to deflect forever.? let's try again.

You say the dissidents of China have the right to Free speech, even though they are in prison. I say they have no Free Speech. Can you explain the value of their right to Free Speech?

You say the people of Darfur have a right to life even though they are being slaughtered. I say they have no right to lief. Can you explain the value of their right to life when they are corpses?

Can you use a little logic?

;-)

I have answered your questions. Stating facts does not mean you agree with the action. Can you understand that statement?

I have conceded that you MIGHT have a point and I am willing to explore that option.

To explore it I want you to answer some questions on your philosophy so I can get a better understanding. You have been saying I don't understand... right?

I have answered questions, and posted my previous philosophy at great length on this board. You have dismissed it as faulty. So now let us explore yours.

Let's try this again, I am not asking if you agree... I am asking why, given your previous assertions, you DON'T agree. Saying you don't agree is just repeating yourself and avoiding the question.

"So then you are fine with them being killed or imprisoned for speaking? No objections?"

Not at all.

According to you, they don't have that right, so it can't be wrong to imprison them for something they have no right to do.

So why aren't you ok with them being imprisoned?

"So then you are fine with them being killed. No objections?"

Again--simply stating a fact is not an agreement with the action.

According to you, they have no right to live. If they don't have this right. If they are doing something they have no right to do, then it can't be wrong to stop them from doing it.

Why wouldn't you agree with them being killed?

BB... SO YOU ARE PRETTY MUCH SAYING....that the government oppress people....and only the government allows you to have rights


WELL WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A GOVERNMENT IS OVERTHROWN...(during the power vaccume created when a government loses power)..is the government allowing itself to be overthrown...does the government have a say of what your rights are after its overthrown

"According to you, they don't have that right, so it can't be wrong to imprison them for something they have no right to do."

According to their government it is not wrong. My opinion doesn't matter and has no bearing on their lives. None of their rights come from me. If their government says they have no rights--they have no rights. Right or wrong is subjective. Many countries disagree with us killing our prisoners. It is the same process except on a larger and less discriminatory situation in Darfur, and Cambodia. It is right in their country.Their rights came from the government. The exact same rights could happen here. Proof is in the Japanese Americans of WWII. It wasn't right according to me--it wasn't my decision to make.

Same with the Chinese dissidents. It is right in their country that they be imprisoned. If I went there and said the same things they said--I would be imprisoned also. The government makes the rules. They have the same rights as all Chinese. The rights their government grants them. Right and wrong are subjective and up to the whims of the government. Personal opinion has nothing to do with the facts.

your turn.

What value is the right to free speech when you are in prison for speaking freely?

What value is a right to life to a corpse?

;-)

"You say the people of Darfur have a right to life even though they are being slaughtered. I say they have no right to lief. Can you explain the value of their right to life when they are corpses?

Can you use a little logic?" - Bob

Thats easy, you are only looking at those that are dead. Those that did the slaughtering have the right to live....your logic is that those the died somehow didn't have the right to life, because there is no government.

Well those that are alive have the right to live, regardless of a government or not.

Might makes right!

People kill people all the time in the US, they don't have the right because only the government has that right, but they do it anyhow.

According to their government it is not wrong. My opinion doesn't matter and has no bearing on their lives.

Again you are dodging the question. I didn't ask you if your opinion had bearing on their lives or could change it.

I simply asked if you were ok with it. You said no. I I asked , that given that they are doing something they have no right to do, why aren't you ok with it?

Care to answer the question?

Here let me go over some of the facts you have established and clarify my question a bit:

You say our rights come from the government.

Yet you also say right and wrong is subjective.

This is patently false per your first assertion.

The government obviously determines right and wrong.

China has said it is ok to kill or imprison people in their country for trying to speak freely.

Darfur says that people have no right to live if the government wants them dead.

The people that are doing things the government says they have no right to do, are in violation of right and wrong.

They are wrong for speaking freely, and they are wrong for living.

The governments imprison them or kill them for doing wrong.

Why, given your stated views, do you feel this is not ok? Why would you possibly have an objection?

Since the government decides right and wrong, you can't say it is morals. There are no such thing, and even so your morals can't extend beyond the bounds of the government that gave them to you, so there is no reason for you to feel pity, disgust, or outrage for what happens to them.

So again.... why do you have a problem with what is being done to them?

I'm a member of the NRA and I have a small penis.
This is why I need large guns, to make up for my diminutive member.

If the government took away my large guns, I'd only be a redneck with a small penis. All my redneck friends would laugh at me.

The black criminals would be able to rape my wife, and I couldn't shoot at them cause only they would have big guns.

All blacks have big guns...that's why I want one....yo...

I'm a member of the NRA and I have a small penis.
This is why I need large guns, to make up for my diminutive member.

If the government took away my large guns, I'd only be a redneck with a small penis. All my redneck friends would laugh at me.

The black criminals would be able to rape my wife, and I couldn't shoot at them cause only they would have big guns.

All blacks have big guns...that's why I want one....yo...

Posted by ArmyVet at 2008-03-20 08:07 PM

Thanks for your confession ArmyVet.

I am sure your wife would welcome the "black criminals" that would rape her since your penis is so small.

ArmyVet,
You poor pin dick.

ArmyVet,
You poor pin dick.

Tell me about it.

That confession just put his mutterings in a whole new, pathetic light. Kind of feel sorry for the needle dicked bug humper.

I asked , that given that they are doing something they have no right to do, why aren't you ok with it?

Care to answer the question?

Posted by moomanfl at 2008-03-20 07:12 PM

Geez--I don't know what my opinion has to do with anything. We are talking about something that is separate from me completely and has no bearing on the issue at hand.

However, let's look at your question.

"given that they are doing something they have no right to do, why aren't you ok with it?"


They have every right to do what they are doing. They are the govenment. They make up the rights of their people. I'm not ok with it because I don't think killing people is a good thing. They obviously disagree.

Moomanfl

"You say our rights come from the government."

True

"Yet you also say right and wrong is subjective."

True

"This is patently false per your first assertion."

False. Your logic is skewed.



"The government obviously determines right and wrong."

True.

"China has said it is ok to kill or imprison people in their country for trying to speak freely."

True

"Darfur says that people have no right to live if the government wants them dead."

True

"The people that are doing things the government says they have no right to do, are in violation of right and wrong."

True

"They are wrong for speaking freely, and they are wrong for living."

True

"The governments imprison them or kill them for doing wrong."

True

"Why, given your stated views, do you feel this is not ok? Why would you possibly have an objection?"

I object because my vision of right and wrong is different than theirs--right and wrong are subjective--they have a different view.



"Since the government decides right and wrong, you can't say it is morals."

True

"There are no such thing, and even so your morals can't extend beyond the bounds of the government that gave them to you, so there is no reason for you to feel pity, disgust, or outrage for what happens to them."

Morals are subjective also--but there is such a thing as morals. Morals are values--we all have them. We all have values and place different values on every object and living thing in our lives. Just because your values differ from anothers doesn't make yours right and theirs wrong. I'm just stating facts that you can't seem to grasp and you keep deflecting to me. Try to face facts.

There is no such thing as a right to life.

There is no such thing as Free Speech.

Not unless your government gives you that right and they can take that right at any time.

They can take your life at any time.

They can imprison you at any time




So again.... why do you have a problem with what is being done to them?

Posted by moomanfl at 2008-03-20 07:46 PM |

How you contradict yourself.

First you agree that right and wrong are decided by the government:

"The government obviously determines right and wrong."

True.

"BBob you are an idiot, that is all."

Talk about calling a spade a spade.

If they outlaw guns, then the people making the guns for the military will no longer be able to do research and developement. The ones doing the best R&D are ex soldiers who know how to make improvements to weapons.

I don't agree with the constitution, it is crap. It cant guarentee anything at all. To me it is a worthless document hillbillies made up and is not well thought out. Can we really promise freedom of beliefs, NO! No matter what you do, you will be discriminating against someone. Liberals are the worst offenders, they hate everyone who doesn't embrace everyone, even those who should not be embraced.
Liberals cant promise freedom of religion because they don't understand it. Liberals are exactly like Nero and the Roman Empire, in that empire you could worship any God and even make up your own. But worship Jesus and they will kill you.

Your admission means that right and wrong are not subjective. The government decides.

It is subjective to whatever the government decides. They could decide to be beneficial to the people or not. That they can make whatever rules they want has no bearing on whether right and wrong are subjective. Once the government makes that decision, it is no longer subjective for that government--they have made their view known. However right and wrong can still be judged by other because-right and wrong are subjective to different viewpoints. Just because an entity makes a decision on which viewpoint they favor, that has no bearing on the fact that right and wrong are subjective and each entity--goverment or individual has to make that subjective decision for themselves.

"Since morals are just a determination of right and wrong, that means that morals are not subjective either. The government decides."

Again, right and wrong are subjective. Once a determinaton is made by an entity--government or individual, right and wrong and morality ceases to be subjective--for that entity of indivudual only. Right and wrong continue to be subjective to each individual until they make up their mind as to how they view the world in right and wrong and morality. But even then, arguments could be put forth to change minds. Your argument falls apart with---the government decides---because all governments have decided different rules for morality and right and wrong. Different results for government formation means that the rules of right and wrong and morality are subjective. If all the governments came up with the same rules for right and wrong and morality, you would be correct.

It is subjective to whatever the government decides.

I think you better check the definition of subjective.

Here I will help you.

subjective
adj.
1.
a. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
b. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
2. Moodily introspective.
"3. Existing only in the mind; illusory.
4. Psychology Existing only within the experiencer's mind.
5. Medicine Of, relating to, or designating a symptom or condition perceived by the patient and not by the examiner.
6. Expressing or bringing into prominence the individuality of the artist or author.
7. Grammar Relating to or being the nominative case.
8. Relating to the real nature of something; essential.

If right and wrong are determined by the government as you have stated above, then they are not subjective at all. They are dictated.

And since the definition of moral is:

moral
adj.
1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

Feel free to post away BBob, I will neither see it, nor care. :-)

Going to bed now.

Posted by moomanfl at 2008-03-21 12:40

Goodnight, Moomanfl