Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Caroline Kennedy

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    Caroline Kennedy

    Does anyone else find it strange that Caroline Kennedy wrote a book in 1991 entitled "In Our Defense: The Bill of Rights In Action" yet strongly supports strong gun control measures as well as reinstatement of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2003?

    She's cute!

    Not very bright, though.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    A lot of the 60s left thought that they were all about rights. What they were about was not having their opinions quashed. Then they started winning elections, and it became about power. Now, the only speech that they see as free is speech that agrees with them. The RKBA by the citizenry in general reduces their power, so they are against that right, period.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    I am curious if she argued in her book that 'right's are absolute unfettered 'rights'. Unless you are assuming that her book implies that she holds some view by the mere title of her book.

    "The Bill Of Rights In Action," appears to imply the book is about the 'application' of The Bill Of Rights. Not whether or not the BOR are some absolute set of 'rights' that are unfettered.

    There is nothing contradictory in the title of her book, and her view (if it is) that 'rights' are not absolute, and/or unfettered.

    Both Liberals, and Conservatives have their stance on 'rights', and who 'rights' protect, and not protect, and to what degree those 'rights' are protected.

    'Rights' as 'privileges', that's all I see when people start pontificating what "is" and "is not" a 'right', and what the breadth and depth of that 'right' is.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 05-08-2011 at 10:04 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post

    Both Liberals, and Conservatives have their stance on 'rights', and who 'rights' protect, and not protect, and to what degree those 'rights' are protected.

    'Rights' as 'privileges', that's all I see when people start pontificating what "is" and "is not" a 'right', and what the breadth and depth of that 'right' is.
    Yep and why they are both wrong. And why I believe that they are Psuedo left and Right positions, in reality a single line with freedom on the right and tyranny on the left is not a very accurate equation of liberty. If folks insist on this line though both the "left and right" are extremely to the left, and want us to falsely believe the "center" is between them? Ahhhh come on!!

    I don't see rights as privileges and neither did the writers of our constitution, who considered all freeman to have these rights. This is the propaganda that both parties have successfully convinced the public is the case. The past century especially has seen a huge erosion of our rights.

    Woodrow Wilson and FDR were the worst offenders. Hitler and Mussolini adored FDR. Mussolini even made a statement when FDR totally ignored constitution, took on powers that were not his, forced SCOTUS to accept his rulings with threats of packing the court (and he packed the court anyway) "Ecco un ditorre" (Behold a dictator)

    Hey but not to just pick on those on the "left" the "right" has wholeheartedly participated in and has done nothing to reverse, these infringements on rights. The war on drugs, increase in "Law Enforcement", and erosion of 4th amendment rights etc. all continue down that road to tyranny. ( Forget the illusion we are heading to tyranny, I feel we are already there)
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  5. #5
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Money making machines is what 'they' are. Voters on both sides are convinced that their newly elected representative is going to "sort things out," uhuh, right.

    It's interesting watching it play out, and watching people from both sides get hooked.

    You may not have to worry much longer, it appears the 'right' (Conservatives) are going 'more' Conservative. One day you will get to vote for someone you believe in.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  6. #6
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Does anyone else find it strange that Caroline Kennedy wrote a book in 1991 entitled "In Our Defense: The Bill of Rights In Action" yet strongly supports strong gun control measures as well as reinstatement of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2003?

    She's cute!

    Not very bright, though.
    She was cute, when she was 8. Now she's just one more leftwing *******.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    'Rights' as 'privileges', that's all I see when people start pontificating what "is" and "is not" a 'right', and what the breadth and depth of that 'right' is.
    Ahh.. hehe, leave it up to Beretta92FSLady to discern the difference, here...

    What's a "right?" Is it inalienable? "not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated" I'd say pretty much all Constitutional as well as Amendments 1 through X fall into that realm.

    Rights are not privileges. The erosions of our rights under our Constitution begin when subversive powers attempt to subvert our rights into "privileges" to be "awarded" by our government 225 years after our Founding Fathers granted the exercise of such behaviors as RIGHTS, not "privileges" to be handed out by powers that be as some sort of favor.

    SCREW THAT. That is the ENTIRE antithesis of what our Founding Fathers stood for. That's the same Papal "indulgence" construction in which not only the Church of England rebelled, but against which our own Founding Fathers rebelled, and for dang good reason, a reason which wound up creating the greatest nation our planet has ever known!

    If we'd like to keep it, we need to do two things: Throw off those who would subvert our strength for their own purposes, and forge a slimlined package void of Clintons and Obamas on which we can enter into a new era without either of the previous two allowing their campaign supporters to continue sucking massive dollars from our coffers.

    If you don't think this is what's going on... There's a nice meadow at Kitty Hawk I'd like you to visit. It's met with decent breezes from March to October, with the usual winters experienced by most of North America. Utilities prices are reasonable, and you can live out your lives in relative, conscientiously unknowing bliss.

    As for the rest of us, we're eyes wide open. Enjoy your sunset. Your choice. Should you decide to change your mind, you're always welcome aboard. Please be advised some of our passengers predate the very existence of our Country.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  8. #8
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Money making machines is what 'they' are. Voters on both sides are convinced that their newly elected representative is going to "sort things out," uhuh, right.

    It's interesting watching it play out, and watching people from both sides get hooked.

    You may not have to worry much longer, it appears the 'right' (Conservatives) are going 'more' Conservative. One day you will get to vote for someone you believe in.
    I don't believe in Republican version of conservatism. I believe in liberty. That's the thing when folks insist on using "left" and "right". To me true liberty has no designated path or line, it's about wandering where ever we wish as long as we are not causing harm to others.

    Of course I was always like this. I didn't use the proper colors when coloring in kinder garden either I chose the colors I liked and thought looked cool. I often drew in guns and swords into the hands too (back then there were no alarms raised).

    People when unencumbered by "rules" and government restriction come up with some amazing stuff.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  9. #9
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Ahh.. hehe, leave it up to Beretta92FSLady to discern the difference, here...

    What's a "right?" Is it inalienable? "not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated" I'd say pretty much all Constitutional as well as Amendments 1 through X fall into that realm.

    Rights are not privileges. The erosions of our rights under our Constitution begin when subversive powers attempt to subvert our rights into "privileges" to be "awarded" by our government 225 years after our Founding Fathers granted the exercise of such behaviors as RIGHTS, not "privileges" to be handed out by powers that be as some sort of favor.

    SCREW THAT. That is the ENTIRE antithesis of what our Founding Fathers stood for. That's the same Papal "indulgence" construction in which not only the Church of England rebelled, but against which our own Founding Fathers rebelled, and for dang good reason, a reason which wound up creating the greatest nation our planet has ever known!

    If we'd like to keep it, we need to do two things: Throw off those who would subvert our strength for their own purposes, and forge a slimlined package void of Clintons and Obamas on which we can enter into a new era without either of the previous two allowing their campaign supporters to continue sucking massive dollars from our coffers.

    If you don't think this is what's going on... There's a nice meadow at Kitty Hawk I'd like you to visit. It's met with decent breezes from March to October, with the usual winters experienced by most of North America. Utilities prices are reasonable, and you can live out your lives in relative, conscientiously unknowing bliss.

    As for the rest of us, we're eyes wide open. Enjoy your sunset. Your choice. Should you decide to change your mind, you're always welcome aboard. Please be advised some of our passengers predate the very existence of our Country.
    I get what you're saying, and the Founding Fathers did not 'grant', but 'affirmed'. There is a difference. Nothing more, nothing less, just an 'affirmation'.

    I prefer the society that we have now. Considering the social inequities that existed, and that still exist, but not to the degree that they did. I would hate for us to go back to your so-called Liberty, back during a time when females typically could not own property, vote, drive...not thanks.

    The unfortunate individual that comes to my door with that type of Liberty better be well armed, and catch me off guard (good luck with that).
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 05-10-2011 at 10:21 AM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  10. #10
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445
    Her and Arnold are seperated.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifest...wdG_story.html

    What's her number?
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Venator View Post
    Her and Arnold are seperated.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifest...wdG_story.html

    What's her number?
    Wrong Kennedy. Shriver, not Caroline K.

  12. #12
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post

    I prefer the society that we have now. Considering the social inequities that existed, and that still exist, but not to the degree that they did. I would hate for us to go back to your so-called Liberty, back during a time when females typically could not own property, vote, drive...not thanks.
    .
    I prefer to have the original definition of rights and liberty back and equally applied to all.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  13. #13
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    I prefer to have the original definition of rights and liberty back and equally applied to all.
    Please stop with the generalities. Tell me, please, what do you mean by 'original definition of rights and liberty," and what does that look like in a social setting? Really, I want to know what you mean by this.

    I am not sure if you, and me have met before at OC BBQ's, but really, in person I like to think I'm not, or seem like a jerk...I am genuinely wanting to know what you mean by these things. You can PM it to me, if you like.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    I prefer the society that we have now. Considering the social inequities that existed, and that still exist, but not to the degree that they did. I would hate for us to go back to your so-called Liberty, back during a time when females typically could not own property, vote, drive...not thanks.
    The foundational basis for the evolution and eventual success of the civil rights movements you specify, were indeed based upon the same "Liberties" you state you abhor.

    It is concepts of liberty that are directly implied to mean, "That which is most free.". If you cannot wrap your head around the fundamental truth in that statement, and view it from every angle possible, then you will apply it to mean whatever you want it to mean, whenever you want it to mean it.

    The core concept of "that which is most free", is why the military did in fact have to eventually yield to equity in service for homosexuals, without discrimination. Subversion of the Constitution to mean something other than it does, is disingenuous, and does not stand up under focused argument. Regulation of sexuality is not an enumerated power given the federal government, nor is it compliant with the DoI's "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".

    Indeed, one cannot be happy, if they are forced to mate, or partner with, a member of a sex they are not attracted to.


    I subscribe to most popular Democrat and Republican E-zines, and the big hoopla on the Republican side, via newsletter, is a clinging to religious "rights" or beliefs, in an attempt to subvert or oppress the rights of homosexuals.

    The only Constitutional claim they attempt to make, and fail miserably at, is that somehow the equitable treatment of homosexuals is a violation of their ability to practice their religion. They make repeated attempts to specify that there is a constitutional violation, but are so fundamentally flawed in argument, as well as completely and blatantly wrong, that they don't have a leg to stand on. Therefore most of these articles are hilariously stupid.

    They focus a ton on how it is a "sin", and how "God" want's you to keep these "sinners" from "polluting" our military ranks, and talk less and less about the constitutional violations they claim.

    Ah, but it is convenient to violate the Liberty of our nation from the premise of religion. Yes?

    No. Really, it's not.


    A little more education and research would show you that the very core of "Liberty", is what the Constitution was penned to. It is the distinct purpose of the BoR, and why the framers were intently focused on creating a Constitution that specifically enumerated what the Federal government could do, simultaneously,wholly eliminating what would be a rather tiring list of what they can't do.

    Over time the federal government has taken piece by piece, and it has started to form a larger picture of our rights being violated. Within said frame, people like yourself get the idea that "big government is necessary", and also take up the viewpoint that we are "better off now then we were then", often confusing technological achievements, governmental growth, and a multiplicity of laws as some form of gauged, metric success as to our superiority over previous societies.

    Nothing makes me laugh more about how pompous we sound, especially compared to societies before us.

    Nope, they didn't have electric toasters, or dating apps on their iPhones, but their political, governmental, and philosophical experiences were much like our own.

    Yet here we are discussing how our current society is somehow "better" than what it was before, culturally, and socially. The truth is, we are in a pretty ****** situation, and our nation certainly will eventually fold from the burgeoning demands of a self-righteous government, well beyond the limits of its constitutional leash.

    I would rather live in a time where things we take for granted now weren't demonized or those who partook in said demonized activities weren't immediately ostracized from the culled masses.

    Living in the 50's indeed would have been peachy for you Beretta, were you to simply be allowed the things for which you should have never been denied by the very virtue of liberty and equity anyways, simply by being a woman.

    I dare say that a same sex relationship in the 50's comprised of two female voters could have had a hell of a good time were such unconstitutional requirements placed upon them in the first place.

    Our society has a crappy way of doing that.

    Shunning or somehow vilifying normal activity regardless its perfectly protected constitutionality.

    Things like,...I dunno.

    Open Carry maybe?

    Just some giblets to chew on.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady

    I prefer the society that we have now. Considering the social inequities that existed, and that still exist, but not to the degree that they did. I would hate for us to go back to your so-called Liberty, back during a time when females typically could not own property, vote, drive...not thanks.
    .

    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    I prefer to have the original definition of rights and liberty back and equally applied to all.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Please stop with the generalities. Tell me, please, what do you mean by 'original definition of rights and liberty," and what does that look like in a social setting? Really, I want to know what you mean by this.

    I am not sure if you, and me have met before at OC BBQ's, but really, in person I like to think I'm not, or seem like a jerk...I am genuinely wanting to know what you mean by these things. You can PM it to me, if you like.
    There is no generalities....I was responding to the thought that somehow the original definition of liberty and our rights are wrong and they somehow are flawed because the culture at the time.

    People need to get over it, we no longer want the constitution to be only applied to "white" men. (although not all white men had the the right to vote then either). We have worked passed all that, "minorities" of all sorts have used the very document that provides this liberty to rightly and justly have the government recognize these rights for them too. Then they want to turn around and despise and get rid of the documents that provided them that freedom??



    Yes we have met many times, we have had several great friendly conversations. I don't think you are being a jerk.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  16. #16
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by slowfiveoh View Post
    [cut]
    It is concepts of liberty that are directly implied to mean, "That which is most free."...If you cannot wrap your head around the fundamental truth in that statement, and view it from every angle possible, then you will apply it to mean whatever you want it to mean, whenever you want it to mean it.

    [cut]
    For the most part, I agree with the portions of your response that I "[cut]".

    "That which is most free." 'Liberty' as a, or is a fundamental truth. A notion derived from A fundamental truth, that evolves?

    So, the termed notion 'Liberty' as "that which is most free" is a Fundamental truth, but the application of 'Liberty' evolves?

    A social evolution, based on a notion (innate? construct?) that there is this thing termed 'Liberty', that encompasses a particular 'thing(s)', and is a fundamental truth.

    I acknowledge that 'Liberty' exists. And that there are notions of 'Liberty'. Whether 'Liberty' is a fundamental truth or not is in question. Also what I question is "That which is most free," and what it means. 'Most free' seems to imply that 'Liberty' is as free as 'Liberty' can be at any given moment.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  17. #17
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    .
    There is no generalities....I was responding to the thought that somehow the original definition of liberty and our rights are wrong and they somehow are flawed because the culture at the time.
    So, are you saying that 'Liberty' in application is relative, and temporal? But 'Liberty' as a notion is neither relative, nor temporal, but Fundamental?

    People need to get over it, we no longer want the constitution to be only applied to "white" men. (although not all white men had the the right to vote then either).
    I agree with you. Changing the application of the Constitution does not change what is a structural issue. A society that started off with inequity, has inequity in its DNA.

    We have worked passed all that, "minorities" of all sorts have used the very document that provides this liberty to rightly and justly have the government recognize these rights for them too. Then they want to turn around and despise and get rid of the documents that provided them that freedom??
    This is one conundrum that we face as a society. The notion of 'Liberty', and 'Rights' as they were, were established on the notion - either directly or indirectly - that Caucasian heterosexual males are allotted 'Liberty', and 'Rights' that are exclusively for Caucasian heterosexual males. Now you have 'others' who are not Caucasian heterosexual males demanding the same 'Liberty', and 'Rights' as Caucasian heterosexual males have enjoyed by merely being born as such.

    The perception is that the Constitution is somehow being 'undermined', but it isn't, IMO. The reason that changes are occurring is because the social structure, and the application of the Constitution is being refit for all groups, and not for one particular group of individuals.

    I am not saying that it is the Caucasian males fault.



    Yes we have met many times, we have had several great friendly conversations. I don't think you are being a jerk.
    Thank you.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 05-12-2011 at 01:48 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    For the most part, I agree with the portions of your response that I "[cut]".

    "That which is most free." 'Liberty' as a, or is a fundamental truth. A notion derived from A fundamental truth, that evolves?

    So, the termed notion 'Liberty' as "that which is most free" is a Fundamental truth, but the application of 'Liberty' evolves?

    A social evolution, based on a notion (innate? construct?) that there is this thing termed 'Liberty', that encompasses a particular 'thing(s)', and is a fundamental truth.

    I acknowledge that 'Liberty' exists. And that there are notions of 'Liberty'. Whether 'Liberty' is a fundamental truth or not is in question. Also what I question is "That which is most free," and what it means. 'Most free' seems to imply that 'Liberty' is as free as 'Liberty' can be at any given moment.
    Just letting you know that this is why people can't take you seriously.

    It could be pointed out how ridiculous your commentary is by simply replacing the word "Liberty", with "Pizza", or any other word.

    For human beings to communicate, we fall back on the core meaning of a word, that way we don't have the willy-nilly assumptions that could be reached using your method of interpretation.

    So let's do this.

    What is the definition of "Liberty"?

    "The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life."

    Ah, so the absolute definition of "Liberty" is to be free from oppressive restrictions "imposed by authority" on ones way of life.

    Now if we gave the term "Liberty" a sliding scale wherein oppression of any kind were applied against the masses (like homosexuals in the military for example), well then it wouldn't mean "Liberty" anymore, now would it?

    No. It would not.

    Let's see if another term fits what you are trying to describe by your contorting of the term "Liberty".

    Regulate -
    "To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law."

    In order to argue against Liberty withing the US Government, one must create a rule of law prohibiting the exercise of freedoms.

    This most certainly is "Regulation" of the masses, and in no way can be described as "Liberty".
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  19. #19
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by slowfiveoh View Post
    What is the definition of "Liberty"?

    "The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life."
    Your argument is that 'Liberty' has only one meaning. I will accept that. Except, I would like to know what constitutes a thing as an 'oppressive restriction'? Is it all 'restriction'? And by that, all restriction is then oppressive?

    "By authority," or "by an Authority?" The Authority of whom? Government?

    Ah, so the absolute definition of "Liberty" is to be free from oppressive restrictions "imposed by authority" on ones way of life.

    Now if we gave the term "Liberty" a sliding scale wherein oppression of any kind were applied against the masses (like homosexuals in the military for example), well then it wouldn't mean "Liberty" anymore, now would it?
    It depends on what an 'oppressive restriction' is deemed to be.

    If 'oppressive restriction' is ALL 'restrictions' then yes.

    If 'oppressive restriction' is SOME 'restriction' then of course it would not be, based on your assertion (?) that 'Liberty' is some thing specific, and absent ALL form of restriction.

    Let's see if another term fits what you are trying to describe by your contorting of the term "Liberty".

    Regulate -
    "To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law."

    In order to argue against Liberty withing the US Government, one must create a rule of law prohibiting the exercise of freedoms.

    This most certainly is "Regulation" of the masses, and in no way can be described as "Liberty".
    I agree with your definition of 'regulate'.

    If an individual, or group of individual (Representatives) is creating a rule of Law, then they are in effect during the process arguing against 'Liberty', and attempting to prohibit the exercise of a 'Freedom'? If the terms of your 'Liberty' are unfettered, then yes.

    Oh, but it can. If your understanding is that 'Liberty' is a term which symbolizes a notion that by the application of the notion is nothing more than a construct. As to whether 'Liberty' holds some fundamental truth to it as a notion. I have been thinking about this. If 'Liberty' is a fundamental truth, then all people would agree that 'Liberty' as a notion, and in application would be the same; because it is fundamental truth, right?

    How do you explain a notion termed 'Liberty', that is argued to be Fundamental Truth, has so many variations by definition, and degree, as well as the application of 'Liberty'?
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 05-12-2011 at 04:55 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Your argument is that 'Liberty' has only one meaning. I will accept that. Except, I would like to know what constitutes a thing as an 'oppressive restriction'? Is it all 'restriction'? And by that, all restriction is then oppressive?
    Since liberty by definition, is synonymous with "freedom", let's take a look at the definitions of both in synonym form:

    "—Synonyms
    1. Freedom, independence, liberty refer to an absence of undue restrictions and an opportunity to exercise one's rights and powers. Freedom emphasizes the opportunity given for the exercise of one's rights, powers, desires, or the like: freedom of speech or conscience; freedom of movement."

    Ah. So "ones rights" are unequivocally attached to both terms, "freedom", and "liberty".

    Furthermore, a complete absence of undue restriction is necessary to even meet the criteria for being called "Free" or "Liberty".

    Examples of this "undue" activity in our current government is essentially everywhere in our present society, particularly when weighed against the fundamentals of liberty, and the the proposed adherence to that which is most free, as commented on numerous times by the framers themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    "By authority," or "by an Authority?" The Authority of whom? Government?
    That is the beauty of our Constitution and its inception. "An Authority" refers to anybody, at any time, who places upon themselves the power to deprive you of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Furthermore, it applies to the same individuals/governments, who violate our enumerated constitutional rights, without the empowerment to do so.

    What we have in modern times is a skirting of the purpose for Constitutional convention.

    Hence full on firearms bans that have been allowed in places like Chicago, and D.C., wherein they could not pass constitutional muster on their face.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Ah, so the absolute definition of "Liberty" is to be free from oppressive restrictions "imposed by authority" on ones way of life.
    Correct.

    Be advised that "authority" does not limit itself to ones government.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    It depends on what an 'oppressive restriction' is deemed to be.
    Any oppression that subverts, or violates Constitutionally enumerated rights, or the three inalienable rights as declared by the Declaration of Independence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    If 'oppressive restriction' is ALL 'restrictions' then yes.

    If 'oppressive restriction' is SOME 'restriction' then of course it would not be, based on your assertion (?) that 'Liberty' is some thing specific, and absent ALL form of restriction.
    Be careful. I stated oppression of inalienable, and otherwise enumerated rights, which by definition are bound to the English nouns, "Liberty" and "Freedom".

    Furthermore, it most certainly applies to those not specifically enumerated, but not specified as being under federal jurisdiction as well. This is covered by the 9th Amendment.

    Hence why homosexuality, not being controlled by government by constitutional binding, nor expressly enumerated as inalienable, is absolutely protected under the 9th Amendment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    I agree with your definition of 'regulate'.

    If an individual, or group of individual (Representatives) is creating a rule of Law, then they are in effect during the process arguing against 'Liberty', and attempting to prohibit the exercise of a 'Freedom'? If the terms of your 'Liberty' are unfettered, then yes.
    Incorrect.

    They are only violating Liberty and Freedom, if said laws or regulations are in direct conflict with the U.S. Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence. They are also guilty of violating the Constitution, and liberty as well as freedom, by self-granting of powers not expressly given them via the Constitution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Oh, but it can. If your understanding is that 'Liberty' is a term which symbolizes a notion that by the application of the notion is nothing more than a construct. As to whether 'Liberty' holds some fundamental truth to it as a notion. I have been thinking about this. If 'Liberty' is a fundamental truth, then all people would agree that 'Liberty' as a notion, and in application would be the same; because it is fundamental truth, right?
    You're not really asking a question here, and to be honest, it is hard to understand precisely what you are saying because of formatting, and misspelling.

    Liberty, like any other English word, does have a base definition. Because our language is so descriptive, we have developed an abundance of nouns and adjectives to better describe to a finite point, our conveyed message.

    You attempt to state that "Liberty" has an embedded "notion" by definition. A "notion" implies that it is a free-form concept.

    Unfortunately, this is disingenuous.

    By inserting "notion" in sentence referring to a specific word, with a specific definition, you are in fact trying to skew, or alter the word/definition.

    You are attempting to take the edges of the hard lines, and smear them around the page a bit.

    This is not acceptable when dealing with legal concepts, or our nations foundational backbone.

    Take the definition of the word at complete, factual, face value.

    Realize that any deviation from it, probably falls under the definition of another word.

    Word's like "Regulation", or "Compliance".

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    How do you explain a fundamental truth that a notion termed 'Liberty' has so many variations by definition by degrees, as well as the application of 'Liberty'?
    Ah, a question containing a lie, in an attempt to get an omission. Don't try to play word games with me Beretta.

    #1. Liberty is not a "Notion". "Liberty" does in fact have a hard definition.
    #2. It is not a "fundamental truth" that Liberty is a "notion".
    #3. Deviation from the term "Liberty", or "Freedom", outright changes the definition of what you are defining.

    Such a definition would be "regulation", since the activity is no longer "Free" or within the scope of "liberty", but is specifically controlled in any way, shape, or form.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  21. #21
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Seriously, you know the outcome of this whole thing. I will respond to your last post the PM, if you give me the go-ahead. If not, I will not respond to it. You know this is going to shut the thread down, and I am not taking part in that again.

    PM me if you are interested in me responding to your last post through PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Seriously, you know the outcome of this whole thing. I will respond to your last post the PM, if you give me the go-ahead. If not, I will not respond to it. You know this is going to shut the thread down, and I am not taking part in that again.

    PM me if you are interested in me responding to your last post through PM.
    There is nothing controversial or inarticulate about our conversation.

    There is nothing heated, nor egregious in our prior posts.


    Why would any of this be shut down?
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  23. #23
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by slowfiveoh View Post


    Why would any of this be shut down?
    Are you kidding me LOL. Ok, I am going to respond in a bit, on here then. We'll see what happens.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  24. #24
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by slowfiveoh View Post
    Since liberty by definition, is synonymous with "freedom", let's take a look at the definitions of both in synonym form:

    "—Synonyms
    1. Freedom, independence, liberty refer to an absence of undue restrictions and an opportunity to exercise one's rights and powers. Freedom emphasizes the opportunity given for the exercise of one's rights, powers, desires, or the like: freedom of speech or conscience; freedom of movement."
    undue [ʌnˈdjuː]
    adj
    1. excessive or unwarranted
    2. unjust, improper, or illegal
    3. (Economics, Accounting & Finance / Banking & Finance) (of a debt, bond, etc.) not yet payable
    Usage: The use of unduein sentences such as there is no cause for undue alarm is redundant and should be avoided
    op·por·tu·ni·ty/ˌäpərˈt(y)o͞onitē/Noun
    1. A set of circumstances that makes it possible to do something.
    2. A chance for employment or promotion

    Yes, they are attached. But how ‘Liberty’, and ‘Freedom’ as synonymous ‘things’ are not related to any sort of ‘unfettered’ symbolic representation that the terms ‘Liberty’, and ‘Freedom’ are asserted by you to fundamentally, and/or by definition to be.

    “…an absence of restrictions” would have made sense, but they are defined as, in application, and to represent “…an absence of undue restriction”, and also a symbol of an “opportunity given” are what ‘Liberty’, and ‘Freedom’ under your definition takes their symbolic form, and application

    *If my response is to thick, let me know, and I will elaborate*

    Basically what I am stating is that the fundamental nature (yes, I will assert that the symbolic representation of the terms ‘Liberty’, and ‘Freedom’ are fundamental in their attribution of a particular definition), purpose, and application of the terms ‘Liberty’, and ‘Freedom’ are not unfettered; even by the definition that you have provided.

    Ah. So "ones rights" are unequivocally attached to both terms, "freedom", and "liberty".
    Jumping the gun a bit? Yes, ‘rights’ are attached to the terms. But the application of ‘Liberty’, and ‘Freedom’ are contingent on ‘undue restriction’; and are also referred to as ‘opportunity given’. I will concede the latter as an ‘opportunity given’ is likely inherent in the ‘spirit’ of the intent of the terms ‘Liberty’, and ‘Freedom’.

    Furthermore, a complete absence of undue restriction is necessary to even meet the criteria for being called "Free" or "Liberty".

    Examples of this "undue" activity in our current government is essentially everywhere in our present society, particularly when weighed against the fundamentals of liberty, and the the proposed adherence to that which is most free, as commented on numerous times by the framers themselves.
    LOL, you knew I would focus on the definition, and its inclusion of ‘undue’. Are we having a telepathic connection?

    Your asserting that the “complete absence” of ‘undue restriction’ is necessary to meet said criteria. The problem is that the word “complete” has meaning. The definition refers to the two terms as having “…an absence.” Not, “complete.”


    That is the beauty of our Constitution and its inception. "An Authority" refers to anybody, at any time, who places upon themselves the power to deprive you of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Furthermore, it applies to the same individuals/governments, who violate our enumerated constitutional rights, without the empowerment to do so.
    This statement is true, but is not applicable to our current form of seating our Representatives. Representatives are voted in, the power given to Representatives is not taken, but given through the vote.


    What we have in modern times is a skirting of the purpose for Constitutional convention.
    If you are going to assert that the Constitution has a ‘purpose’, then explain, please. Are ‘purpose’, and ‘intent’ synonymous?

    Hence full on firearms bans that have been allowed in places like Chicago, and D.C., wherein they could not pass constitutional muster on their face.
    Yes, ‘full on’ firearms bans are unconstitutional.



    Be advised that "authority" does not limit itself to ones government.
    Any oppression that subverts, or violates Constitutionally enumerated rights, or the three inalienable rights as declared by the Declaration of Independence.
    But is typically levied from some government entity. I am trying to think of an authority that oppresses, but does not come from a government entity.

    Unalienable Rights are “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. So we have a Natural ‘right’ to:
    We do not have the Natural Right to “Happiness,” but rather, the ‘pursuit’ of Happiness. At the core of all of this, fundamentally, these ‘rights’ are deemed a Natural Right.




    Be careful. I stated oppression of inalienable, and otherwise enumerated rights, which by definition are bound to the English nouns, "Liberty" and "Freedom".

    Furthermore, it most certainly applies to those not specifically enumerated, but not specified as being under federal jurisdiction as well. This is covered by the 9th Amendment.

    Hence why homosexuality, not being controlled by government by constitutional binding, nor expressly enumerated as inalienable, is absolutely protected under the 9th Amendment.
    “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

    What the Founding Fathers are stating here is that there are “certain” ‘rights’ which are enumerated shall not be mistaken as ‘rights’ that can be used to undermine other ‘rights’ which are within the Constitution.

    So, the ‘right’ of freedom of Religion, cannot be used to argue that because the ‘belief’ of the Religion is that homosexuals should not have ‘rights’ be applied via the Constitution to deny the homosexual his/her ‘rights’ under the Constitution.

    Hey…”Religion” is an authority. I knew I would have something come to mind!




    Incorrect.

    They are only violating Liberty and Freedom, if said laws or regulations are in direct conflict with the U.S. Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence. They are also guilty of violating the Constitution, and liberty as well as freedom, by self-granting of powers not expressly given them via the Constitution.
    Agreed. What I was stating is that they are arguing against ‘Liberty/Freedom’ if the premise is that ‘Liberty/Freedom’ are unfettered.

    If they are ‘self-granting’ powers, yes. Unless the ‘self-granting’ is done via the Constitution’s ‘rules’ of how the process of legislation is either to take place, or is not allowed.





    You're not really asking a question here, and to be honest, it is hard to understand precisely what you are saying because of formatting, and misspelling.

    Liberty, like any other English word, does have a base definition. Because our language is so descriptive, we have developed an abundance of nouns and adjectives to better describe to a finite point, our conveyed message.

    You attempt to state that "Liberty" has an embedded "notion" by definition. A "notion" implies that it is a free-form concept.

    Unfortunately, this is disingenuous.

    By inserting "notion" in sentence referring to a specific word, with a specific definition, you are in fact trying to skew, or alter the word/definition.

    You are attempting to take the edges of the hard lines, and smear them around the page a bit.

    This is not acceptable when dealing with legal concepts, or our nations foundational backbone.

    Take the definition of the word at complete, factual, face value.

    Realize that any deviation from it, probably falls under the definition of another word.

    Word's like "Regulation", or "Compliance".
    “Oh, but it can. If your understanding is that 'Liberty' is a term which symbolizes a notion that by the application of the notion is nothing more than a construct. As to whether 'Liberty' holds some fundamental truth to it as a notion. I have been thinking about this. If 'Liberty' is a fundamental truth, then all people would agree that 'Liberty' as a notion, and in application would be the same; because it is fundamental truth, right?”

    ‘Notion’ is synonymous with ‘concept’ as a premise, and/or assertion. That is what all of these symbolic terms are, such as, ‘Liberty’, and ‘Freedom’. First there is a concept that is formulated, and structured based on a premise, or an assertion. Then there is a symbolic representation of the concept that takes the form of a term, such as ‘Liberty’.

    Ah, a question containing a lie, in an attempt to get an omission. Don't try to play word games with me Beretta.
    Muah? LOL

    #1. Liberty is not a "Notion". "Liberty" does in fact have a hard definition.
    I agree, ‘Liberty’ is not a ‘notion’. ‘Liberty’ is a symbol of a notion.




    #2. It is not a "fundamental truth" that Liberty is a "notion".
    You are right. A premise that the particulars of a ‘notion’ are a ‘fundamental truth’ is an assertion that the ‘notion’ is a ‘fundamental truth’.

    #3. Deviation from the term "Liberty", or "Freedom", outright changes the definition of what you are defining.
    I am not deviating from the term ‘Liberty’, and ‘Freedom’. What I am doing is bringing to light that the premise, or assertion of the notion that is attributed the symbols ‘Liberty’, and ‘Freedom’ might not be absolute.


    Such a definition would be "regulation", since the activity is no longer "Free" or within the scope of "liberty", but is specifically controlled in any way, shape, or form.
    So, you are asserting that ‘Liberty’, and ‘Freedom’ by definition are absolutely unfettered?
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 05-13-2011 at 05:52 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Have we gotten anywhere, yet? Looks like the posts are getting longer.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •