AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
AZkopper wrote:
AZkopper wrote:
Where on earth did I suggest any of that?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
A house divided against itself cannot stand
- Thread starter Darroll
- Start date
AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
thx997303 wrote:
That's because you did not listen to what I said.
I said that the NATURAL RIGHT is self-defense.
I said that the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT is to keep and bear arms. The CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to keep and bear arms is derived from the NATURAL RIGHT to self-defense and (to protect) the NATURAL RIGHT to liberty.
There is no NATURAL RIGHT to keep and bear arms. That was the point.
thx997303 wrote:
That's because you did not listen to what I said.
I said that the NATURAL RIGHT is self-defense.
I said that the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT is to keep and bear arms. The CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to keep and bear arms is derived from the NATURAL RIGHT to self-defense and (to protect) the NATURAL RIGHT to liberty.
There is no NATURAL RIGHT to keep and bear arms. That was the point.
AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
45acpForMe wrote:
Let me let you inon a little secret: you ARE the government. If you don't like how things are, change them. As long as we have a democratic government in place, there is NO reason for it to ever be oppressive... unless people allow it to become that way.
45acpForMe wrote:
Let me let you inon a little secret: you ARE the government. If you don't like how things are, change them. As long as we have a democratic government in place, there is NO reason for it to ever be oppressive... unless people allow it to become that way.
AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
DMWyatt wrote:
So there's no natural right to self-defense? Then what is there?
Again, this is NOT that difficult to understand. I NEVER EVER EVER said that society could CHANGE natural rights. What I DID say is that society sets the BOUNDS and LIMITS on those rights.
You have a natural right to "liberty." Society will determine what constitutes liberty. The right is always there, what "liberty" means to one society, is different than what "liberty" means to another society.
Liberty, in this society, does not included driving your car however fast you want down the highway.
Liberty, in eastern European society, DOES include people being allowed to drive as fast as they want.
That's called a GRAY AREA. GRAY AREAS are defined by SOCIETY.
As I've said a million times before, if you think you've got all the answers, you think you've got it all figured out, or you think the world really is black/white... you're not looking hard enough.
Keep in mind: this is all GRANTED natural rights even exist. There is ZERO proof for natural rights. I'm just giving you the benefit ofa doubt because I happen to believe in them too. But never forget that they CANNOT be proved, therefore you CANNOT hold anyone to them.
DMWyatt wrote:
So there's no natural right to self-defense? Then what is there?
Again, this is NOT that difficult to understand. I NEVER EVER EVER said that society could CHANGE natural rights. What I DID say is that society sets the BOUNDS and LIMITS on those rights.
You have a natural right to "liberty." Society will determine what constitutes liberty. The right is always there, what "liberty" means to one society, is different than what "liberty" means to another society.
Liberty, in this society, does not included driving your car however fast you want down the highway.
Liberty, in eastern European society, DOES include people being allowed to drive as fast as they want.
That's called a GRAY AREA. GRAY AREAS are defined by SOCIETY.
As I've said a million times before, if you think you've got all the answers, you think you've got it all figured out, or you think the world really is black/white... you're not looking hard enough.
Keep in mind: this is all GRANTED natural rights even exist. There is ZERO proof for natural rights. I'm just giving you the benefit ofa doubt because I happen to believe in them too. But never forget that they CANNOT be proved, therefore you CANNOT hold anyone to them.
thx997303
Regular Member
imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
My mistake was I read it as you were referring to the 2a, when you were referring to the rights recognized in the declaration of independence.
I do agree that the right to life should and does include self defense.
AWDstylez wrote:
I poorly worded that, and I did read what you were saying.
My mistake was I read it as you were referring to the 2a, when you were referring to the rights recognized in the declaration of independence.
I do agree that the right to life should and does include self defense.
AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
thx997303 wrote:
Clearly. But do you agree that a natural right to self-defense DOES NOT guarantee a natural right to keep and bear arms? Are we in agreement that that is a CONSTITUTIONALLY guaranteed right only?
If not, then make a case for a natural right to keep and bear arms. But before you even bother with that, see if you can even make a case for natural rights in general(don't even think of using religion).
thx997303 wrote:
Clearly. But do you agree that a natural right to self-defense DOES NOT guarantee a natural right to keep and bear arms? Are we in agreement that that is a CONSTITUTIONALLY guaranteed right only?
If not, then make a case for a natural right to keep and bear arms. But before you even bother with that, see if you can even make a case for natural rights in general(don't even think of using religion).
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
thx997303 wrote:
Hey! I just realized something!
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum52/14190-21.html
thx997303 wrote:
Hey! I just realized something!
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum52/14190-21.html
thx997303
Regular Member
imported post
LOL! I knew that thread wasn't dead yet.
Or maybe, it's UNDEAD!:shock:
LOL! I knew that thread wasn't dead yet.
Or maybe, it's UNDEAD!:shock:
shad0wfax
Regular Member
imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
The bold-faced statement I took the liberty to highlight in your quote is the type of behavior that I find discouraging and disheartening. It may even be the type of behavior that Darroll is referring to as well, in the above quote. I won't make that assertion for him, because that would be putting words in his mouth. However, I will make the assertion that when I read the Darroll's above quote, the first thing that comes to my mind is your behavior on these forums.
Granted, there is more substance to this particular post of yours than just that, but you are engaging in name-calling and hyperbole and stereotyping libertarians and Constitutionalists as gun-nut radicals. In the very next statement you make you say,
AWDstylez wrote:
AWDstylez:
Your own quotes condemn you. Again, you have called a group of people names and slung mud. You do this in many of the posts you respond to in this General Discussion section of the forums. You also frequently make statements like this:
AWDstylez wrote:
AWDstylez wrote:
I will, however, make the assertion that an unreasonable person will arbitrarily dismiss opposing viewpoints as irrelevant and resort to disparaging comments to discredit arguments when facts and logic fail to discredit those arguments.
AWDstylez wrote:
What is far more relevant is what the intent of George Mason, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Thomas Paine, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Livingston, Roger Sherman, John Dickinson, Gouverneur Morris, Edmund Randolph, James Wilson, and George Wythe was when they contributed to those three historical documents. George Washington, although not a direct contributor to those documents has a very important opinion as well, as he was a General during the American Revolution and his Presidency goes without saying. Patrick Henry, although not a writer in any of those documents, was one of the most influential American Revolutionaries at the time.
Here are some quotes from those fine folks about firearms:
AWDstylez wrote:
AWDstylez wrote:
They didn't say that all men were born equal, they said all men were created equal. They didn't say Nature entitles men to rights, they said Nature's God entitles men to rights. At the end of their Declaration of Independence they say they place a "firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence" to support the Declaration.
Tell me then, if our founding fathers referred to Nature's God and their Creator as endowing them with rights and creating them equal, and then rely on Divine Providence to protect them and their Declaration of Independence, why is a religious argument somehow unacceptable to you? Our founding fathers used very carefully denominationally benign language to talk in religious terms without linking themselves to a specific church or denomination. They had a respect for people of various faiths and religious ideologies, yet their argument for independence hinged upon religious concepts and referred to a Creator, Nature's God, and Divine Providence.
AWDstylez, you're asking people to argue the ideology of our founding fathers and setting terms of the argument to suit you, and not allowing people to argue the ideology of the American Revolutionaries of the late 1700's in the context of the American Revolution itself. The context of the Revolution was religious as well as political; that's why the first amendment includes the freedom of religion and forbids the U.S. government from forming a state-sanctioned religion. Our founding fathers were religious and they did not want to see a "Church of America" formed, much like there was the Anglican Church or the "Church of England" which was the official religion of England.
No one is ever going to argue "natural rights" to your satisfaction, because you will define the terms before the debate starts. Moreover, as we've seen in other threads, you're very likely to then redefine the terms during the course of the debate. Until you are willing to have a reasonable debate or discussion with people on this forum who disagree with you without resorting to mud-slinging, slander, libel, or constant redefinition of the terms of the debate we will never reach any form of respectful acceptance of opposing viewpoints, let alone unity in our movement.
AWDstylez wrote:
Darroll wrote:
AWDstylez:
The bold-faced statement I took the liberty to highlight in your quote is the type of behavior that I find discouraging and disheartening. It may even be the type of behavior that Darroll is referring to as well, in the above quote. I won't make that assertion for him, because that would be putting words in his mouth. However, I will make the assertion that when I read the Darroll's above quote, the first thing that comes to my mind is your behavior on these forums.
Granted, there is more substance to this particular post of yours than just that, but you are engaging in name-calling and hyperbole and stereotyping libertarians and Constitutionalists as gun-nut radicals. In the very next statement you make you say,
in an effort to sound like a voice of reason and moderation, rather than someone who just deliberately slung mud at members with views that differ from your own.
AWDstylez wrote:
AWDstylez:
Your own quotes condemn you. Again, you have called a group of people names and slung mud. You do this in many of the posts you respond to in this General Discussion section of the forums. You also frequently make statements like this:
AWDstylez wrote:
This type of behavior is, in my opinion, some of the basest and most immature that I've seen on these forums. Note, I am not calling you names. I am not calling you base or immature. I am, instead, calling you out for writing in a manner that is base and sophomoric. You speak as if you are somehow the ultimate arbiter of truth and the voice of reason. When you write in that manner, you are guilty of using the same tone and implying the same message you railed against "group #4" for, that any interpretation other than your own is wrong. The implication or in some cases, the statement you make is that you are the reasonable one, and the other people, these "moonbats" all need to get with the program.
AWDstylez wrote:
Your words, not mine... This is precisely the type of "othering" language that is used to justify behavior. The implication is that those of us who disagree with you, such as myself in this case, are somehow people without reason. An unreasonable person would not be capable of responding to you in a civil and respectful manner, nor would an unreasonable person use logic and fact to support their argument against your views.
I will, however, make the assertion that an unreasonable person will arbitrarily dismiss opposing viewpoints as irrelevant and resort to disparaging comments to discredit arguments when facts and logic fail to discredit those arguments.
AWDstylez wrote:
Until the nation encourages Congress to amend the Constitution or repeal certain amendments of the Constitution, and Congress follows through with it and amends/repeals those pertinent sections, the "entire nation's opinion" on what the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights mean today is completely irrelevant.
What is far more relevant is what the intent of George Mason, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Thomas Paine, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Livingston, Roger Sherman, John Dickinson, Gouverneur Morris, Edmund Randolph, James Wilson, and George Wythe was when they contributed to those three historical documents. George Washington, although not a direct contributor to those documents has a very important opinion as well, as he was a General during the American Revolution and his Presidency goes without saying. Patrick Henry, although not a writer in any of those documents, was one of the most influential American Revolutionaries at the time.
Here are some quotes from those fine folks about firearms:
- "To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason
- "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson
- "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good" - George Washington
- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
- Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." -George Washington This quote is falsely attributed to George Washington and is not verifiable. Thanks for pointing this out to me Citizen.
- "& what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that his people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
- - Thomas Jefferson
- <i>"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficient... The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding. [/i]- Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis
- "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. - Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story of the John Marshall Court
- "No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." - 16 Am. Jur. Sec. 177 late 2d, Sec 256
- "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." - Patrick Henry
- "Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands" - Patrick Henry
- "The great object is, that every man be armed. [...] Every one who is able may have a gun." - Patrick Henry
AWDstylez wrote:
"Group #4" is using a technique called The Marxist Dialectic (or Incrementalism) to deliberately pull farther than necessary to make a point. The point is, the "good old days" of the Constitution being taken at face value by the courts and the public are gone, but they can be brought back. This is a diametric opposite to the dialectic being employed against gun-owners every day by the Brady Campaign, George Soros, and other anti-gun activists.
AWDstylez wrote:
Why not use religion? In the Declaration of Independence the founding fathers said:
They didn't say that all men were born equal, they said all men were created equal. They didn't say Nature entitles men to rights, they said Nature's God entitles men to rights. At the end of their Declaration of Independence they say they place a "firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence" to support the Declaration.
Tell me then, if our founding fathers referred to Nature's God and their Creator as endowing them with rights and creating them equal, and then rely on Divine Providence to protect them and their Declaration of Independence, why is a religious argument somehow unacceptable to you? Our founding fathers used very carefully denominationally benign language to talk in religious terms without linking themselves to a specific church or denomination. They had a respect for people of various faiths and religious ideologies, yet their argument for independence hinged upon religious concepts and referred to a Creator, Nature's God, and Divine Providence.
AWDstylez, you're asking people to argue the ideology of our founding fathers and setting terms of the argument to suit you, and not allowing people to argue the ideology of the American Revolutionaries of the late 1700's in the context of the American Revolution itself. The context of the Revolution was religious as well as political; that's why the first amendment includes the freedom of religion and forbids the U.S. government from forming a state-sanctioned religion. Our founding fathers were religious and they did not want to see a "Church of America" formed, much like there was the Anglican Church or the "Church of England" which was the official religion of England.
No one is ever going to argue "natural rights" to your satisfaction, because you will define the terms before the debate starts. Moreover, as we've seen in other threads, you're very likely to then redefine the terms during the course of the debate. Until you are willing to have a reasonable debate or discussion with people on this forum who disagree with you without resorting to mud-slinging, slander, libel, or constant redefinition of the terms of the debate we will never reach any form of respectful acceptance of opposing viewpoints, let alone unity in our movement.
DMWyatt
Regular Member
imported post
Before we go any further down the rabbit hole, let's enumerate what our natural rights are.
Within the framework of natural rights you have:
Life- You have the right to your own essence, your animation is something that no-one else has a right to strip from you. Likewise, you have the responsibility to not strip anyone else of their life.
Property- You have a right to acquire, keep, and possess property. Within the traditional definition of property you have the necessities of life, the fruit of your own labors, and that which you acquire without infringing on the rights of others.
Health- You have the right to tend to your own health to the best of your ability and within your own means to do so. Often this is omitted or tied into the right to life and property.
Liberty- This one is pretty self explanatory.
The various aspects of the right to bear arms falls within more than one of the natural rights. Often, it's cited to fall within the right to life so as to provide a means to protect oneself from another taking one's own life. In this manner, it is also argued that the right to bear arms falls within the defense of liberty as well. I believe that the pertinent right to the discussion is the right to property. Within a state of nature, if one has the capacity to make or acquire arms, they have the right to possess and maintain those arms so long as the act of doing so does not infringe on anyone else's rights.
Within a state of nature, infringing on someone else's rights abrogates any claim you have to your own for the duration of the act of infringement. If someone were to attempt to take my life, I have the right to protect my life from their attempt to take it for the duration of that attempt. I do not have the right to kill them at a later time if they are unsuccessful, as in doing so I would be abrogating my claim to the right to life for the duration of my attempt on their life.
That being said, the next cog in the machine is social contract theory. Governments are instituted among men... blah blah blah. Up until this point, the Constitution in and of itself means nothing. THIS is where the legitimate debate occurs. I will concede to that point in that I had jumped the gun on a few things earlier in the thread. The Constitution is the enumeration of government powers and restrictions outlining the social contract made between the governed and those being governed to satisfy the need for legitimate governance. The structure of common law in the United States is an extension of the social contract subjective to the restrictions and specific powers granted to the government on a federal level within the framework of the Constitution.
On a side note, Locke's definition of astate of naturedid not come from a vacuum. Both Locke and Hobbes WERE motivated by political realities. Hobbes, used natural law within a state of nature to grant legitimacy to the rule of an aristocracy. Locke was intent to use natural rights in a state of nature to uphold the legitimacy of the aristocracy by establishing that a social contract granted certain powers to government at the cost of natural rights in order to maintain a stable political society. The founding fathers used the definitions put forth by Lock for this specific reason. After winning the war for independence fought to uphold the natural rights of man, they had a very real need to establish aframework to advance a stable political society.
What we have in this debate is a convergence of several otherwise acceptable bodies of law subjective to the protections of the governed against the government outlined in a written Constitution. The written Constitution being intentionally vague, has left several instances of law existing contrary to the direct wording of the Constitution, standing, for a lack of clarity in the manner in which the supreme directive of law is to be enforced. Nowhere in the Constitution are our natural rights forfeited as powers inherent to the federal government. Instead, our rights are left subjective to the governing structures of each independent state. Were it not for a broad application of the federal government's role in overseeing commerceamong the states, we would not be having this discussion on a national level. We should not have to have this discussion on a national level. The only reason we are having this discussion is because of an overreach of authority on the part of the federal government in the unconstitutional provisions of the GCA and NFA. Of course, this opens up the "state powers" argument, although I am not necessarily a state "powers" or "rights" advocate either.
As far as the validity of natural rights is concerned, can you provide a reason that patently excludes their existence? Trying to undermine an argument by saying that it doesn't exist is basically the same as trying to win an argument by claiming that you do exist. Can you prove your undeniable existence? Can you prove the existence of your own physical or spritual essence? It should be obvious to an observant mind that natural rights cannot be proven to exist no more than the legitimacy of a majority rule can be proven to be righteous by default. Natural rights are reasoned to exist through the qualification of human behavior outside of an established political society.
In a state of nature, each individual must acquire and maintain that which is necessary to sustain their own lives. This is the rudimentary basis for the existence of a natural right to property.
In a state of nature, each individual possesses their own life, mind, and spiritual essence. Unless inhibited by the intent of another individual, each person in a state of nature will seek to protect and maintain their own health and existence. Any individual who would try and prohibit one from doing so forces competition between themselves and the person they seek to harm. During the encounter, the attacking individual intent ontaking theother person's life willfully puts their own existence in jeopardy during the ensuing struggle. This is the rudimentary observation of a right to life, health,and the extension of a right to protect both.
In a state of nature one cannot subjugate another to their whim without forcing a struggle. Within the ensuing struggle, the dominating individual attempting to take liberty from the other puts his own existence at risk. Denying others their liberty puts your own life at risk, and creates the rudimentary existence of a right to liberty because the act of enslaving someone necessarily puts your own right to life in jeopardy.
I'm going to cut it off here for now. LOL, as a matter of fact maybe I should be writing this into a book and selling it rather than arguing it online. :banghead:
Before we go any further down the rabbit hole, let's enumerate what our natural rights are.
Within the framework of natural rights you have:
Life- You have the right to your own essence, your animation is something that no-one else has a right to strip from you. Likewise, you have the responsibility to not strip anyone else of their life.
Property- You have a right to acquire, keep, and possess property. Within the traditional definition of property you have the necessities of life, the fruit of your own labors, and that which you acquire without infringing on the rights of others.
Health- You have the right to tend to your own health to the best of your ability and within your own means to do so. Often this is omitted or tied into the right to life and property.
Liberty- This one is pretty self explanatory.
The various aspects of the right to bear arms falls within more than one of the natural rights. Often, it's cited to fall within the right to life so as to provide a means to protect oneself from another taking one's own life. In this manner, it is also argued that the right to bear arms falls within the defense of liberty as well. I believe that the pertinent right to the discussion is the right to property. Within a state of nature, if one has the capacity to make or acquire arms, they have the right to possess and maintain those arms so long as the act of doing so does not infringe on anyone else's rights.
Within a state of nature, infringing on someone else's rights abrogates any claim you have to your own for the duration of the act of infringement. If someone were to attempt to take my life, I have the right to protect my life from their attempt to take it for the duration of that attempt. I do not have the right to kill them at a later time if they are unsuccessful, as in doing so I would be abrogating my claim to the right to life for the duration of my attempt on their life.
That being said, the next cog in the machine is social contract theory. Governments are instituted among men... blah blah blah. Up until this point, the Constitution in and of itself means nothing. THIS is where the legitimate debate occurs. I will concede to that point in that I had jumped the gun on a few things earlier in the thread. The Constitution is the enumeration of government powers and restrictions outlining the social contract made between the governed and those being governed to satisfy the need for legitimate governance. The structure of common law in the United States is an extension of the social contract subjective to the restrictions and specific powers granted to the government on a federal level within the framework of the Constitution.
On a side note, Locke's definition of astate of naturedid not come from a vacuum. Both Locke and Hobbes WERE motivated by political realities. Hobbes, used natural law within a state of nature to grant legitimacy to the rule of an aristocracy. Locke was intent to use natural rights in a state of nature to uphold the legitimacy of the aristocracy by establishing that a social contract granted certain powers to government at the cost of natural rights in order to maintain a stable political society. The founding fathers used the definitions put forth by Lock for this specific reason. After winning the war for independence fought to uphold the natural rights of man, they had a very real need to establish aframework to advance a stable political society.
What we have in this debate is a convergence of several otherwise acceptable bodies of law subjective to the protections of the governed against the government outlined in a written Constitution. The written Constitution being intentionally vague, has left several instances of law existing contrary to the direct wording of the Constitution, standing, for a lack of clarity in the manner in which the supreme directive of law is to be enforced. Nowhere in the Constitution are our natural rights forfeited as powers inherent to the federal government. Instead, our rights are left subjective to the governing structures of each independent state. Were it not for a broad application of the federal government's role in overseeing commerceamong the states, we would not be having this discussion on a national level. We should not have to have this discussion on a national level. The only reason we are having this discussion is because of an overreach of authority on the part of the federal government in the unconstitutional provisions of the GCA and NFA. Of course, this opens up the "state powers" argument, although I am not necessarily a state "powers" or "rights" advocate either.
As far as the validity of natural rights is concerned, can you provide a reason that patently excludes their existence? Trying to undermine an argument by saying that it doesn't exist is basically the same as trying to win an argument by claiming that you do exist. Can you prove your undeniable existence? Can you prove the existence of your own physical or spritual essence? It should be obvious to an observant mind that natural rights cannot be proven to exist no more than the legitimacy of a majority rule can be proven to be righteous by default. Natural rights are reasoned to exist through the qualification of human behavior outside of an established political society.
In a state of nature, each individual must acquire and maintain that which is necessary to sustain their own lives. This is the rudimentary basis for the existence of a natural right to property.
In a state of nature, each individual possesses their own life, mind, and spiritual essence. Unless inhibited by the intent of another individual, each person in a state of nature will seek to protect and maintain their own health and existence. Any individual who would try and prohibit one from doing so forces competition between themselves and the person they seek to harm. During the encounter, the attacking individual intent ontaking theother person's life willfully puts their own existence in jeopardy during the ensuing struggle. This is the rudimentary observation of a right to life, health,and the extension of a right to protect both.
In a state of nature one cannot subjugate another to their whim without forcing a struggle. Within the ensuing struggle, the dominating individual attempting to take liberty from the other puts his own existence at risk. Denying others their liberty puts your own life at risk, and creates the rudimentary existence of a right to liberty because the act of enslaving someone necessarily puts your own right to life in jeopardy.
I'm going to cut it off here for now. LOL, as a matter of fact maybe I should be writing this into a book and selling it rather than arguing it online. :banghead:
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
shad0wfax wrote:
Second quote down from the top:
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html
Isn't the 2A world great? Self-correcting towards truth. Won't see that out of the anti-gunners.
shad0wfax wrote:
Gotta watch out for this quote. Its been de-bunked.
Second quote down from the top:
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html
Isn't the 2A world great? Self-correcting towards truth. Won't see that out of the anti-gunners.
shad0wfax
Regular Member
imported post
Citizen wrote:
Thank you very much for poiting that out for me. Apparently it has been falsely attributed to George Washington in literary quotation books, which explains how I got ahold of it. I'll edit my post to reflect that it is not correct, for posterity's sake. It's not as if I needed the quote to make my case.
Citizen wrote:
Thank you very much for poiting that out for me. Apparently it has been falsely attributed to George Washington in literary quotation books, which explains how I got ahold of it. I'll edit my post to reflect that it is not correct, for posterity's sake. It's not as if I needed the quote to make my case.
AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
DMWyatt wrote:
DMWyatt wrote:
45acpForMe
Newbie
imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
Our federal government has been EXTRA-constitutional and getting worse for over a 100 years. The elected officials have continued to ignore the constitution once in office. Yes we still have some "democratic" power via elections but at some point electing loser-A or loser-B doesn't matter.
Look at BHO&crew trying to cram Universal Healthcare andCap&Tax down our throats when they are both unconstitutional AND the majority do not support those measures. Look at the incredible debt being racked up irresponsibly!!!! Will the country be viable in another 3.5 years? If those governing are evil and purposely trying to bankrupt the country should we stand by and let them? Is ittime to water the tree of liberty?
Our government is oppressive because we have allowed it to happen. The court system has become complicit when they should have rebuked evil laws. My question is how long will it continue and what spark will trigger the explosion of revolt? My guess would be when they start confiscating guns that is our last chance to fight because after that we will be sheep led to the slaughter.
AWDstylez wrote:
First to be clear we have a republic not a democracy. That is important because the elected officials aren't supposed to simply let majority rule on any issue. They are to first, within the framework of the constitution, to look at the abiding principles and what is allowed. If it is constitutional, they then may enact laws that the majority wishes. There is an ammendment process but the bill of rights was to be left alone.
Our federal government has been EXTRA-constitutional and getting worse for over a 100 years. The elected officials have continued to ignore the constitution once in office. Yes we still have some "democratic" power via elections but at some point electing loser-A or loser-B doesn't matter.
Look at BHO&crew trying to cram Universal Healthcare andCap&Tax down our throats when they are both unconstitutional AND the majority do not support those measures. Look at the incredible debt being racked up irresponsibly!!!! Will the country be viable in another 3.5 years? If those governing are evil and purposely trying to bankrupt the country should we stand by and let them? Is ittime to water the tree of liberty?
Our government is oppressive because we have allowed it to happen. The court system has become complicit when they should have rebuked evil laws. My question is how long will it continue and what spark will trigger the explosion of revolt? My guess would be when they start confiscating guns that is our last chance to fight because after that we will be sheep led to the slaughter.
AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
45acpForMe wrote:
Don't start this again, we've been down this road a million times. A republic is a form of democracy.
You people are so quick to hop on the "zomg it's a republic not a democray!!!" bandwagon. News flash: a republic is rule by the elite, which is exactly what you're always crying about. In reality, you just want whatever will favor you at the time. You wan rule by public opinion when you agree with public opinion, and you want rule by elite opinion when you agree with the elite opinion.
45acpForMe wrote:
Don't start this again, we've been down this road a million times. A republic is a form of democracy.
You people are so quick to hop on the "zomg it's a republic not a democray!!!" bandwagon. News flash: a republic is rule by the elite, which is exactly what you're always crying about. In reality, you just want whatever will favor you at the time. You wan rule by public opinion when you agree with public opinion, and you want rule by elite opinion when you agree with the elite opinion.
45acpForMe
Newbie
imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
AWDstylez wrote:
Absolutely not!Our republic is ruled by elected officials WITH the constraint that the specific items listed in the constitution MUST be obeyed! If they ignore the constitution then we are a simple democracy (mob rule) which has always committed suicide in history.
thx997303
Regular Member
imported post
I don't believe it is mob rule when the constitution is ignored, I would agree that when the constitution is ignored, it is then rule by the elite.
I don't believe it is mob rule when the constitution is ignored, I would agree that when the constitution is ignored, it is then rule by the elite.
45acpForMe
Newbie
imported post
thx997303 wrote:
We are currently in an "elite" rule mode where the constitution is ignored AND the officials are ignoring the will of the people.
thx997303 wrote:
I see your point. I was assuming that the elected official would still represent their constituency. If not, yes it is elite rule, while they can stay elected.
We are currently in an "elite" rule mode where the constitution is ignored AND the officials are ignoring the will of the people.
DMWyatt
Regular Member
imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
From here it gets very simple. If I have a right to own what I can acquire, make, produce, buy, or haggle for myself; then yes, I would have a right to be secure in the ownership of firearms provided I do not infrige on anyone's rights in the process. I see nothing so complex in society that it would legitimately strip me of this right. Furthermore, I'm trying to see how you can actually agree with natural rights, and then use the complexity of society to undo them.
If I am not in the process of shooting you, robbing you, raping you, denying any of your other constitutionally protected rights, doing the same to a member of your family or anyone else in society, why do you care who I am or what I may or may not own? You're saying society is so much more complex than natural rights, and you may be right on this. The question I would ask is why is society so much more complex? The advancement of technology hasn't changed human nature, it's simply allowed fear and comfort to be legislated as legitimate issues. Are you one of those individuals who would determine what length of grass is appropriate for your neighbor's property because you think tall grass is unsightly?
AWDstylez wrote:
From here it gets very simple. If I have a right to own what I can acquire, make, produce, buy, or haggle for myself; then yes, I would have a right to be secure in the ownership of firearms provided I do not infrige on anyone's rights in the process. I see nothing so complex in society that it would legitimately strip me of this right. Furthermore, I'm trying to see how you can actually agree with natural rights, and then use the complexity of society to undo them.
If I am not in the process of shooting you, robbing you, raping you, denying any of your other constitutionally protected rights, doing the same to a member of your family or anyone else in society, why do you care who I am or what I may or may not own? You're saying society is so much more complex than natural rights, and you may be right on this. The question I would ask is why is society so much more complex? The advancement of technology hasn't changed human nature, it's simply allowed fear and comfort to be legislated as legitimate issues. Are you one of those individuals who would determine what length of grass is appropriate for your neighbor's property because you think tall grass is unsightly?
DMWyatt
Regular Member
imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
AWDstylez wrote:
While I agree we don't need to rehash the argument, you could at least define them correctly. A republic is NOT a form of democracy. A democracy is one typeof arepublic. A republic is the absense of the rule of a monarch or dictator, generally indicated by the rule of law. What the law says, allows, and structures as a form of government is dependent on the social contract between the government and governed.