• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

WA complies with NICS mental health requirement

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
well,,,

Thank you sloefiveoh!!!!

i have wanted to speak to this thread, but
their is no good reason to debate some folks:banghead:
amlevin just doesnt seem to get IT, and then skews the point!
sorry to say that berettalady92fs, is a lost soul, with such a negative attitude,
well, her posts just are just beyond trying to reason with.

I give up on some posters!!!
 

Jim675

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
1,023
Location
Bellevue, Washington, USA
SVG, 12345A Defender, slowfiveoh - thank you for expressing your support for liberty.

Early nomination for "Most Disturbing Quote for 2011, subcategory Elitism / Racism":

"I think that there are certain types, and classes of people that require more control than others. I believe that there is a socio-economic factor that is in-part to blame for this unfortunate reality, but it is not the only reason."
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
Seems like there are more and more events like this that just occurred:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2014357069_deputyinjured01m.html

Let's just let them live free. Maybe enough will take a swing at a LEO and then no longer be a problem.



PS: Sorry to disappoint so many of you but I am just enjoying one of my freedoms. The one that says I'm free to express myself. To bad it can't be free of others condescending attitudes just because they share a different view.

Just like the rest of you I'll continue to have my own views and there is no obligation on anyone to share them.
 

slowfiveoh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,415
Location
Richmond, VA
Seems like there are more and more events like this that just occurred:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2014357069_deputyinjured01m.html

Let's just let them live free. Maybe enough will take a swing at a LEO and then no longer be a problem.

Wow, how did this guy get near a hammer? Clearly we need to screen those who buy construction tools for mental health. :rolleyes::lol:


PS: Sorry to disappoint so many of you but I am just enjoying one of my freedoms. The one that says I'm free to express myself. To bad it can't be free of others condescending attitudes just because they share a different view.

Just like the rest of you I'll continue to have my own views and there is no obligation on anyone to share them.

Talk away!
Express away!

I commend you for doing so.

However, pointing out that you are merely expressing your opinion by way of inalienable right, does not make the opinion correct, or well informed. Hence we have the forum to discuss these things. The more articulated and analytical, the better!


Trying to triage an underlying development problem within the ranks of society by applying a law based band-aid, is not doing anything whatsoever for those you deem to be "irresponsible" or "mentally ill". We need to address the core problem, which for the most part will entail a shift from the "entitlement" and laziness we have come to expect in our society.

I am an introvert for the most part, and to be quite honest, I do not even like people 3/4 of the time. However, I am a watcher. I observe people.

Truth is, most people are inherently good. They just want to make it through life with a smile on their face, and a feeling of belonging.

If you give these people the tools to defend themselves, we effectively become a social beehive. Everyone just wants to make a little honey and only stings when they have to.

A rogue bee in a beehive is quickly weeded out. After all, there is no advantage when everyone else has a stinger.
 

irfner

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Messages
434
Location
SeaTac, Washington, USA
If I agreed (which I don't) those that are deemed a threat to themselves should not be allowed to own a gun. Than anyone who has signed a living will, advanced directive, should not be allowed to own a gun. They are already planning their suicide. It's just a matter of how far you want to carry things and who decides.

I have also heard that all veterans who were involved in combat have the potential for ptsd and so should not be allowed to possess firearms. Or anyone who has ptsd should be barred from possession. It is just more fear mongering with enough basis that if you don't stop to think about it, it sounds reasonable on the surface.
irfner
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
And again this proves my point. Without the rule of law administered by a government selected by the people, only the biggest and baddest will be in charge.

If you think living in a "way out village in Somalia is "peaceful and free", go there and see how great a life that is.

Oh well I tried. No where did I say "no government" I actually said contrary to that, we have a system set up where the government provides the means for us to take personal responsibility. Not rely on public prosecutors, LEO, and paid servants, and paid politicians (they shouldn't be paid) to make "feel good" laws that really do nothing. Slowohfive points it out pretty succintly. The government is not the answer, and we are not supposed to be a democracy we are supposed to be a republic where rights reign supreme, no matter how safe infringing on them may make you feel.

Why should I have to go to another country to be free, when I want to be free here.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Thank you sloefiveoh!!!!

i have wanted to speak to this thread, but
their is no good reason to debate some folks:banghead:
amlevin just doesnt seem to get IT, and then skews the point!
sorry to say that berettalady92fs, is a lost soul, with such a negative attitude,
well, her posts just are just beyond trying to reason with.

I give up on some posters!!!

I'm sorry, I laughed at your reference to me. Good post.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
A lot of commentary in this thread that cannot be proven until we obtain one or the other.
So what are you saying...that we have both freedom and are not free?

The fact is, we now have a government that is far larger than it ever should have been, and we cannot deny that the great moments of freedom in this country, have come, and passed.

All men should be completely free, with a government as small as possible to act on behalf of the free people.
Who is to say it is too large other than people on the right. There is another half of the country that believe government should be more involved.

"Complete freedom" with government acting on behalf of free people. I suppose it is one of those nostalgic American "ideals" that both are possible? All I read in the above quote is this concept of free, well, and your asserting that complete freedom involves government acting on behalf of the people, whomever those "people" are. You may not noticed but we are a country that is split down the center on most issues. I am sure government, from your standpoint, works when it works for you, but not the "other side." Also, the Constitution was reached by a consensus of what was to be put in the Constitution and what was to be left out. The Constitution was not like the Ten Commandments where one man, Moses, went up into the mountain then came down with Ten Commandments etched in stone...the Founding Fathers argued their way through the Constitution, hardly a perfect document. I would say that the Constitution is a good document, but not a divine one as some people believe it is, or treat it as being.

I see a ton of commentary about how "people must be controlled", stated mostly as fact, and in a way to substantiate ones belief that we should be "regulated" as a means of order.

Not only does this comment speak leaps and bounds to the mentality of the individual stating it (Yes Beretta and Amlevin, I am indeed addressing you two.), but it is massively prohibitive to true freedom.
I think I am the only one who stated that most people need to be told what to do and how to think. Don't blame me, blame human nature. I have stated that there are examples of States that are basically without government, without laws, and they are not fairing well at all. But I also stated that if people are for unfettered freedom, than I am in support of it; just that people need to make sure they are ready to deal with a governmentless and lawless nation.

We cannot have a discussion about how the government has regulated away our rights, and then turn around and in the same breath say that it is necessary to maintain order.
Yes, we can.


The correct approach, in my experience, is to migrate from control, but towards personal responsibility.
Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular who seek to negate their individual contribution to collective social issues that have a negative impact on certain classes, races, etc. of people.

Our current freedoms have been regulated away by government under the guise of "providing" (Whether it be safety, healthcare, etc.) things for us.
It was bound to happen--that healthcare would be dragged into this.

In the end, we all do our for ourselves. Well, most of us do.
Of course I disagree with you. What we do for ourselves does have an effect on others around us, and to deny that is to deny that you are acting within a social structure; which you are.

Yet those who possess an "entitled" mentality will advocate for more control, and plea their helplessness. They will then succumb to whatever requirements are bestowed upon them. Then the entitled take note of this, and merely accept it as a "fact of life" that there are those who won't do for themselves, so we must do for them. We then create a system of laws, and punishment, for which said people habitually cross into anyways.
"Entitlement" comes up a lot, particularly from the right. As I stated above regarding "personal responsibility" both are a facade that is used as a tool to negate responsibility.


Thus you reach with the conflicting ideology that government must be here to create and maintain order, but you advocate against said control when it does not suit you (Firearms restrictions).
Government does maintain order, but that order is not absolute. It is apparent that a person either be against government which means no regulation or for government which means absolute control. Again, I disagree.

To reach liberty and true freedom, our founding fathers understood these concepts so very well. Hence they wanted us to operate with the most minimalistic government approach possible.
Here we go again with the concept of "liberty" and "true freedom," what ever that might be. Our founding fathers were at the least culpable in the government that we have, hell, they wrote the Constitution with all of its interpretive Articles. The founding fathers, if they were as intelligent in crafting the Constitution as you think that they were, might not have been so intelligent...or intended for us to be where we are at. I am happy to read that you have acknowledged that "liberty" and "true freedom" are concepts.
 
Last edited:

slowfiveoh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,415
Location
Richmond, VA
So what are you saying...that we have both freedom and are not free?

No. That is not what was remotely implied here.

Of course it is only truly one or the other.

Who is to say it is too large other than people on the right.

The framers, and the US Constitution.

That however is a moot point with you, because I am sure you will drag out a tired concept of "living, breathing pieces of paper", with nary a shred of evidence to point out that it was constructed as such.

There is another half of the country that believe government should be more involved.

Completely unsubstantiated hyperbole.

Also, note your common flaw. The assumption that whatever the masses say, is inherently right.

"Complete freedom" with government acting on behalf of free people. I suppose it is one of those nostalgic American "ideals" that both are possible?

The necessity of a government to act on behalf of the will of the people was an understandable concession at the founding of this country. However, were you more studious, you would realize that it was meant to be as small as possible in a manner only meant to enhance life, without oppressing it.

All I read in the above quote is this concept of free, well, and your asserting that complete freedom involves government acting on behalf of the people, whomever those "people" are.

This sentence makes no sense whatsoever. Please construct it in a fashion so that I may actually understand what the hell you are trying to say here.

Thanks.


You may not noticed but we are a country that is split down the center on most issues. I am sure government, from your standpoint, works when it works for you, but not the "other side."

The inference that you know what "side" I am, is absolutely hilarious. As I read this post you immediately go on denigrating the "right", while not even knowing the party I am affiliated with.

That's a great move on your part. Get emotive.

It's always right to do what "feels" right. Yes, Beretta?


Also, the Constitution was reached by a consensus of what was to be put in the Constitution and what was to be left out. The Constitution was not like the Ten Commandments where one man, Moses, went up into the mountain then came down with Ten Commandments etched in stone...the Founding Fathers argued their way through the Constitution, hardly a perfect document. I would say that the Constitution is a good document, but not a divine one as some people believe it is, or treat it as being.

Legal documents are always good when you can twist, contort, defile, or pull whatever meaning may be tried out of it, yes?

The truth is, you are leaning towards a "progressive" direction of government that is completely out of line with its Constitutional foundation.

This doesn't upset you though, because you probably wouldn't know the federalist papers from a roll of Charmin.

Party affiliated debate aside, I find it rather disgusting, I mean severely putrid, to sit and listen to people who think a document says whatever they think it says, or whatever they can twist it to mean.

Be a stand up individual and at least STATE that you do not agree with the Constitution, but don't sit and wipe your ass with it to push your putrid party ideologies.

The right is just as guilty in this, but the left is definitely par for the course.

I think I am the only one who stated that most people need to be told what to do and how to think. Don't blame me, blame human nature.

You are incorrect. Absolutely incorrect.

Humankind has shown a need for "communal belonging", but not a need for "individual instruction".

Distinct difference.

Some Anthropology courses would do you well.

I have stated that there are examples of States that are basically without government, without laws, and they are not fairing well at all.

Quote of the evening right here.

The facts are that the states with the least government oversight, are the most free, and typically fare well both fiscally as well as having the lowest crime rates.

Perfect example -

Vermont vs. California

Your argument is flawed, and before you even attempt to respond as if its fact, please study facts. That is, unless they are lost on you.

But I also stated that if people are for unfettered freedom, than I am in support of it; just that people need to make sure they are ready to deal with a governmentless and lawless nation.

A lack of government does not infer a lack of law or order.

Furthermore, nobody talked about the complete abolition of government. More to the founding fathers original intent of severe minimization.

Yes, we can.

Enjoy your hypocrisy.


Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular who seek to negate their individual contribution to collective social issues that have a negative impact on certain classes, races, etc. of people.

Are you mental?

Did I really, REALLY just read this?

#1. I am not religious Beretta. Yet personal responsibility is incredibly important to me.
#2. You are obviously a fan of Saul Alinsky.
#3. Religion did not "create a facade" of "Personal responsibility. (Holy Christ on a rubber crutch, where did you get this line of total bullsh*t?)

It was bound to happen--that healthcare would be dragged into this.

Yes, bound to happen because...it's a pertinent point????

yeah, that's PRECISELY why it was brought up. I also brought up "safety" but you libfarted past that and straight to healthcare.

Way to miss the point entirely.

Of course I disagree with you. What we do for ourselves does have an effect on others around us, and to deny that is to deny that you are acting within a social structure; which you are.

Just because there is a lateral impact that varies based on individual, does not mean you are entitled to support the rest of the collective whole.

Believing so is patent stupidity.

Long before you or I started cruising to McDonalds, people were farming their own fields, harvesting their own grain, tending to their own flocks and their garden. They would do so with minimal impact to the outside world, but this fact, again, is completely lost on your whimsical worldview. How selfish of them to not trek to their neighbors every day, and hand over a sack of grain. Am I right?

There is a sliding scale of obligation, with freedom towards the smallest individual unit, and servitude towards the other. Once you slide that scale towards supporting more people, the unavoidable truth is an endpoint of servitude and tyranny.

You desperately need some socio-economic classes.

"Entitlement" comes up a lot, particularly from the right.

Cute strawman. He looks like Raggedy Andy.

I am not a Republican.

Boy don't you feel silly.


As I stated above regarding "personal responsibility" both are a facade that is used as a tool to negate responsibility.

"Individual responsibility is fake".

Gotcha.

Go kill another human being Beretta, and tell me who is responsible.

UH OH!

Government does maintain order, but that order is not absolute. It is apparent that a person either be against government which means no regulation or for government which means absolute control. Again, I disagree.

False!

It can be completely understood that one may understand the necessity of government while observing its shortcomings. Before we got involved in talking about firearms bans, healthcare constitutionality, presidential sexual relations, and the like, our forefathers laid a specific foundation, and prayed that it would stay.

That is as minimalistic a government as possible, meant only to serve the needs of the people without swelling to the size we have today.

I can provide substantiation from the founding fathers if you like, but only if you promise not to print it out and fill your pets cage with it.

Here we go again with the concept of "liberty" and "true freedom," what ever that might be.

"Whatever it may be" indeed, at least, as far as an individual who thinks "personal responsibility" is a fabrication of religion. :lol:

Our founding fathers were at the least culpable in the government that we have, hell, they wrote the Constitution with all of its interpretive Articles.

Thomas Jefferson, the founder of your beloved Democratic party, stated himself that on all questions related to the construction of the Constitution, let us go back to the time when it was adopted, and manifest the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

He did not say, "Yo dawg, let's have a ganja party and see how we can twist this bitch", regardless of how funny you and your democratic friends find it (No personal responsibility, means no personal integrity.)

Of course, the liberal democrats have strayed severely from Jefferson, often trying to denigrate his character. An easy task being that he has been dead for 150+ years. How brave of you and your ilk to denigrate a man who not only founded your party, but would debate any current politician into a hole, from which they would not leave for the rest of their natural life.

The founding fathers, if they were as intelligent in crafting the Constitution as you think that they were, might not have been so intelligent...or intended for us to be where we are at. I am happy to read that you have acknowledged that "liberty" and "true freedom" are concepts.

"Liberty", is tangible.
"True Freedom", is tangible.

Oh and, "Personal Responsibility", wasn't created by the church.

I think even other liberal democrats are laughing right now...
 
Last edited:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
No. That is not what was remotely implied here.

Of course it is only truly one or the other.
I am not questioning your stance, but from my position your conclusion appears short-sighted.


The framers, and the US Constitution.

That however is a moot point with you, because I am sure you will drag out a tired concept of "living, breathing pieces of paper", with nary a shred of evidence to point out that it was constructed as such.
You act as if I am the only person who view the Constitution as a living breathing document. I have offered reasons why I have concluded that it is inherently interpretive. There is no Constitutional Article or Amendment that state that it is such, just as there is neither of the two that state that it is something other than interpretive.

Completely unsubstantiated hyperbole.

Also, note your common flaw. The assumption that whatever the masses say, is inherently right.
Do you really want to descend into accusations of "hyperbole" or have an actually discussion about the intent and purpose of the Constitution and how relates to its application?

What is a "common flaw?" Is this common flaw a personal flaw, or a flaw that I share with a group of people? Please, stick to the discussion, and lay off these general statements such as "common flaw." Unless you are prepared to describe to me what is 'common' and what is a 'flaw' and what, in by your understanding, constitutes a common flaw.

I did not state that what the masses say make it inherently right. There is nothing made inherently right or wrong...there is only right or wrong established by individual, institution, and an institutionalization of right and wrong generally.



The necessity of a government to act on behalf of the will of the people was an understandable concession at the founding of this country. However, were you more studious, you would realize that it was meant to be as small as possible in a manner only meant to enhance life, without oppressing it.
So, you concede that the Constitution was brought to a signature worthy state due to concessions...that's a start. Again, another snide comment, this time bringing into question my studiousness.

So, you are asserting that the Constitution was meant to enhance life, without oppressing it? I am sure you realize the conflict there. When you enhance the life of one individual, say, economically, it creates the opportunity for oppression of those who did not advance. I am not saying I agree with your asserting that the Constitution was meant to do such a thing, but we can start from there, I am on board.

The Constitution is meant to enhance life. An extension from that enhancement is the reality that not all peoples will be enhanced to the same degree. From various degrees of enhancement comes an imbalance that cuts into opportunity. When person A acquires the means of production, then person B is subject to person A for their economic existence. All that stops A from monopolizing are regulations that are set by the State.

This sentence makes no sense whatsoever. Please construct it in a fashion so that I may actually understand what the hell you are trying to say here.

Thanks.
Thank you for asking nicely.

"All I read in the above quote is this concept of free, well, and your asserting that complete freedom involves government acting on behalf of the people, whomever those "people" are."

Sorry:

I was stating that "complete freedom" is merely a concept. Also, the reference you made to "free people" and not understanding what "people" you might be referring to. "Freedom" can mean many things.

The concept of "complete freedom" is an interesting one that I hope you would elaborate on, please.

The inference that you know what "side" I am, is absolutely hilarious. As I read this post you immediately go on denigrating the "right", while not even knowing the party I am affiliated with.

That's a great move on your part. Get emotive.

It's always right to do what "feels" right. Yes, Beretta?
You have yet to tell me what side you are on. You are the one who has claimed above that there are absolutes..."Of course it is only truly one or the other" is what you stated.

It is right to do not necessarily what "feels" right, hopefully it would be "it is right to do what one has concluded as being right." There are some things I have concluded are right that do not fall in line with certain other views that I might have...I know, sounds like waffling to some people, just an acknowledgment that there are no simple solutions to issues, well, IMO.

So, your responses are absent any thing emotive?


Legal documents are always good when you can twist, contort, defile, or pull whatever meaning may be tried out of it, yes?

The truth is, you are leaning towards a "progressive" direction of government that is completely out of line with its Constitutional foundation.
Legal documents, if you are referring to the Constitution (?) IMO is inherently interpretive. You can conclude, if you choose, that it is a "contortion...defile[ment]." What is interesting is that if you agreed with the "contort" it would not be a bad thing, but a Constitutional one...how provocative!

This doesn't upset you though, because you probably wouldn't know the federalist papers from a roll of Charmin.

Party affiliated debate aside, I find it rather disgusting, I mean severely putrid, to sit and listen to people who think a document says whatever they think it says, or whatever they can twist it to mean.

Be a stand up individual and at least STATE that you do not agree with the Constitution, but don't sit and wipe your ass with it to push your putrid party ideologies.
I do not agree with certain interpretations of the Constitution. Is that good enough for you? Jeez, the funny thing about all of this is I am merely offering genuine responses. Don't expect such openness from most people, especially people online. If you are interesting in having a discussion about anything in particular, minus personal attacks, than I am all for it. We will likely not agree, but hey, it's not like we have to, there is no requirement that we do.

I have no party perse'. And if I did, I would not consider it to be putrid...are you being emotive now?

The right is just as guilty in this, but the left is definitely par for the course.
Are you speaking for the right?



You are incorrect. Absolutely incorrect.

Humankind has shown a need for "communal belonging", but not a need for "individual instruction".

Distinct difference.

Some Anthropology courses would do you well.
There you go again with this notion of absolutism. Where does that come from?

Humankind (I appreciate your wordage here, believing that there is something "kind" about humans) has shown a need for communal belonging? How so? Is it because humans have historically formed communities? Does that imply, or form a direct correlation between humans forming communities and it being asserted that they show a need for communal belonging? Or are you strategically placing words such as "shown" to make it appear as though that is the case, but there is nothing definitive in such an assertion?

You are right, there is a distinct difference between "communal belonging" and "individual instruction." When I was making reference to the concept of individual instruction I was pointing out that in order for the communal belonging to come to fruition, meaning, the individuals seeking communal belonging are incorporated into a social structure, and by that structure the majority of individuals are, for whatever reason, in need of instruction on how to behave, and what to think (what to believe in).


Quote of the evening right here.

The facts are that the states with the least government oversight, are the most free, and typically fare well both fiscally as well as having the lowest crime rates.

Perfect example -

Vermont vs. California

Your argument is flawed, and before you even attempt to respond as if its fact, please study facts. That is, unless they are lost on you.
And you were doing so well with keeping the personal attacks to a minimum the past couple of quotes.

If you pay attention to the (S), you will see that I was referring to States, not states. States, as in countries.



A lack of government does not infer a lack of law or order.

Furthermore, nobody talked about the complete abolition of government. More to the founding fathers original intent of severe minimization.
I agree, a lack of government does not infer a lack of law and order. Since that is the case, can you direct me to a State that is without a government that has managed to stay intact?



Enjoy your hypocrisy.
You have deemed my response hypocritical, I am shocked.




Are you mental?

Did I really, REALLY just read this?

#1. I am not religious Beretta. Yet personal responsibility is incredibly important to me.
#2. You are obviously a fan of Saul Alinsky.
#3. Religion did not "create a facade" of "Personal responsibility. (Holy Christ on a rubber crutch, where did you get this line of total bullsh*t?)
No, Wayne, I am not mental...at least, I don't think that I am.

I did not say that you are religious.

Ok, so you think it is BS...is this the part where I state that I am surprised by your response? I am obviously a fan of Saul Alinsky...are you sure about that?

Personal responsibility is a concept that is used to negate individual responsibility to society as a whole. You should calm down a bit, I am just telling you what I have concluded. You always have the "freedom" (I know how much you love the concept of freedom) to not agree with me.

Yes, bound to happen because...it's a pertinent point????

yeah, that's PRECISELY why it was brought up. I also brought up "safety" but you libfarted past that and straight to healthcare.

Way to miss the point entirely.
I didn't miss the point, you were making it without the need to place healthcare on this page. Healthcare takes away your rights? Describe to me the rights that you had before the healthcare bill, and the rights that you are now denied, thank you.



Just because there is a lateral impact that varies based on individual, does not mean you are entitled to support the rest of the collective whole.
Nice choice of words "lateral impact." I did not state that people are entitled. I stated that there is an effect to person A acquiring great wealth in that person B is then subject to person A. Then again, you believe in the concept of "free will." If you believe that you have the freedom to become whatever it is you want to become than you must be in a pretty good economic position. Let's face it, who would choose to be poor, if they could choose to be rich.

Believing so is patent stupidity.
You have concluded that it is patently stupid, Ok.

Long before you or I started cruising to McDonalds, people were farming their own fields, harvesting their own grain, tending to their own flocks and their garden. They would do so with minimal impact to the outside world, but this fact, again, is completely lost on your whimsical worldview. How selfish of them to not trek to their neighbors every day, and hand over a sack of grain. Am I right?
I don;t eat at McDonalds, but I get what you are saying. I disagree, people were not necessarily one with the Earth, and one with self-sufficiency. There was and is an interdepedance. They would hand over grain if they knew that their neighbor was in need of it. The community enlisted one another to take care of a crop when one farmer was sick, knowing that if they were to ever become ill, and were unable to tend to their field they would receive help...call it a pre-welfare state.

There is a sliding scale of obligation, with freedom towards the smallest individual unit, and servitude towards the other. Once you slide that scale towards supporting more people, the unavoidable truth is an endpoint of servitude and tyranny.
Hyperbole (I hate to resort to this)?

You desperately need some socio-economic classes.
I am not in desperate need of much, just another cup of coffee. Regarding socio-economic classes, they already exists.

Cute strawman. He looks like Raggedy Andy.

I am not a Republican.

Boy don't you feel silly.
You call it a strawman, I call it an observation...go figure!

I didn't say that you are a Republican, did I?


"Individual responsibility is fake".

Gotcha.

Go kill another human being Beretta, and tell me who is responsible.

UH OH!
There is a difference between "fake" and a "concept." When I am using the term "facade" I am referring to a construct that exists as a concept.

I have never killed a human being. If I were to be in the unfortunate position where a person died when I was defending myself, I would consider what degree of responsibility was mine and what degree was theirs...I might even conclude that the responsibility was in the hands of the person perpetrating the crime against me.





False!

It can be completely understood that one may understand the necessity of government while observing its shortcomings. Before we got involved in talking about firearms bans, healthcare constitutionality, presidential sexual relations, and the like, our forefathers laid a specific foundation, and prayed that it would stay.

That is as minimalistic a government as possible, meant only to serve the needs of the people without swelling to the size we have today.
The Founding Fathers prayed?

"Minimalistic a government as possible," and you have concluded that our current state of government is not such...but who determines that to be the case one way or the other? So, you are stating that the government is there to serve the needs of the people? What if those needs are healthcare and financial assistance?

I can provide substantiation from the founding fathers if you like, but only if you promise not to print it out and fill your pets cage with it.
I do not own pets.



"Whatever it may be" indeed, at least, as far as an individual who thinks "personal responsibility" is a fabrication of religion. :lol:
Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.



Thomas Jefferson, the founder of your beloved Democratic party, stated himself that on all questions related to the construction of the Constitution, let us go back to the time when it was adopted, and manifest the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

He did not say, "Yo dawg, let's have a ganja party and see how we can twist this bitch", regardless of how funny you and your democratic friends find it (No personal responsibility, means no personal integrity.)
If that is the case than we should reference both the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers. If you are up to that, than let's do it. I am taking 20 credits this quarter so my responses may not be posted quickly.

Then the question would be why do you want to have a discussion with someone you have determined to have no integrity?

Of course, the liberal democrats have strayed severely from Jefferson, often trying to denigrate his character. An easy task being that he has been dead for 150+ years. How brave of you and your ilk to denigrate a man who not only founded your party, but would debate any current politician into a hole, from which they would not leave for the rest of their natural life.
How brave of you to assert that we should dig up the writing of the long-deceased and pontificate what each and every one of them intended, and attempt to bring all of their stances together as if we can form some specific purpose in the Constitution.

"Liberty", is tangible.
"True Freedom", is tangible.
If you write a concept of 'liberty" onto a piece of paper then yes, it is tangible. If you are a lone individual with a concept of liberty then yes, it is tangible in your experience.

True freedom is not tangable...freedom is, but as I outlined above.

Oh and, "Personal Responsibility", wasn't created by the church.

I think even other liberal democrats are laughing right now...
You are right, it wasn't, it is used as a tool, well, and a political concept.

I am not sure if liberal democrats are laughing right now...do you know some that are reading what I have stated? You are stating that I am a liberal democrat, I suppose I am if liberal democrats are for the Second Amendment, and pro-death penalty. Also, I don't know to many liberal democrats that believe we should shoot our enemies to death, not hug them until they like us, or kill us...the latter (hugs) occurs more often than the former.
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Also, I don't know to many liberal democrats that believe we should shoot our enemies to death, not hug them until they like us, or kill us...the latter (hugs) occurs more often than the former.

Really? Mao, Che, Stalin, Lennon, Po pot, Hitler, .....etc.

Socialism/communism only works by force. And even that has failed in all the countries that have tried it. When you take peoples free will and right to do what they want away you take away the strive to do anything at all.

We are not supposed to be a democracy, we are supposed to be a republic were our inalienable rights, that both the left and the right like to steadily chip away at, using ridiculous rationalizations, and false "interpretations" of our founding documents, reign supreme.

By the way I am not religious and strongly believe in personal responsibility. The second amendment is about our right to fight against a 'big' government and tyranny. And those who want to continue to push that issue must keep that in mind. (oh wait they do, that's why you see folks on the fake left and right wanting "sensible" gun laws.)

Alexander Tyler:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From Bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence; (hmmm I think we are between these last two phases)
From dependence back into bondage."
 
Last edited:

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
Could you give us a better comparison?

slowfiveoh said:
The facts are that the states with the least government oversight, are the most free, and typically fare well both fiscally as well as having the lowest crime rates.

Perfect example -

Vermont vs. California

Vermont with a population of 621,000 people doesn't offer much of a comparison with California at over 37 million people.

As you look across the country crime seems to concentrate itself in areas of high population density.

This does illustrate one of the differences between the US at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and today.

The population in 1790 was 3.9 million and today it is approaching 311 Million.

Much has changed. We've grown and unfortunately so has our government. Some of the growth is of necessity, some because of misguided views of government's responsibility, and some because too many don't really care. What's strange is that it just keeps on going that way and those who believe in a minimalist government don't seem to get much traction when the elections roll around. Could it be that the majority of our population doesn't see things as they do? The 60% of eligible voters that actually participate in the selection of government that is.
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Vermont with a population of 621,000 people doesn't offer much of a comparison with California at over 37 million people.

As you look across the country crime seems to concentrate itself in areas of high population density.

This does illustrate one of the differences between the US at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and today.

The population in 1790 was 3.9 million and today it is approaching 311 Million.

Much has changed. We've grown and unfortunately so has our government. Some of the growth is of necessity, some because of misguided views of government's responsibility, and some because too many don't really care. What's strange is that it just keeps on going that way and those who believe in a minimalist government don't seem to get much traction when the elections roll around. Could it be that the majority don't see things as they do?

Look at ratio's not just population, it is very telling.

Some growth yes, look at my quote from Alexander Tyler, people are voting for themselves, both on the fake left and right.

The majority isn't supposed to matter our rights are.

Plus what majority so many people are disillusioned with the two yahoos they give us to vote for that the "majority" don't even vote. Average election is around 30% I believe. So we have about 15% of the country dictating what the rest will do. ( And many in that group only vote for whom they believe to be the lesser of two evils).
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy,

I read this and thought I was reading a synopsis of the Obama Administration with a Democrat run Congress. Isn't that how he got to be President? Likewise with the Congress elected in 2006?

I've got a neighbor that made it quite clear that they were voting for Obama and the Dem's "to see that the wealth was spread around". It's working great for them as they now have to have garage sales to meet regular expenses due to the economy downturn.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Really? Mao, Che, Stalin, Lennon, Po pot, Hitler, .....etc.

Socialism/communism only works by force. And even that has failed in all the countries that have tried it. When you take peoples free will and right to do what they want away you take away the strive to do anything at all.

You believe that in a Democracy a person has "free will" and a "right" to do what they want? Is there a direct correlation between taking away right or free will and the public no longer having a desire to do anything but sit home and wait for their government check at the beginning of each month?

Socialism and Communism (they are two different social theories) appear to be better suited for humans. Sure, you have examples of societies run amok that happen to have been Socialist or Communist, but Socialism and Communism do not directly lead to Hitler, Mao, or Stalin.

If Democracy is such a wonderful form of government then how do you explain its inability to remain intact? It appears as though we have taken on some Socialist aspect these past half-dozen decades. How do you explain this?

I have stated this before, that we are becoming or taking on more Socialist aspects. Is there some thing wrong with that...not necessarily. I guess we'll have to see.

We are not supposed to be a democracy, we are supposed to be a republic were our inalienable rights, that both the left and the right like to steadily chip away at, using ridiculous rationalizations, and false "interpretations" of our founding documents, reign supreme.

"Ridiculous rationalizations?" "False interpretations?" What makes a rationalization ridiculous or an interpretation false? I really want to know. An interpretation is only false because you have concluded that it is.

Ok, we are not supposed to be a Democracy? Really. And we are supposed to be a Republic, and a people who have inalienable rights. So, we are not supposed to be a people that rule by majority? What other rule is there than majority; would you rather rule by minority?

Please describe what a Republic and a Democracy is, and describe to me the differences, thank you.

The Constitution is a framework of concepts. We have been through this before.

By the way I am not religious and strongly believe in personal responsibility. The second amendment is about our right to fight against a 'big' government and tyranny. And those who want to continue to push that issue must keep that in mind. (oh wait they do, that's why you see folks on the fake left and right wanting "sensible" gun laws.)
Alexander Tyler:

You don't have to be religious to believe in personal responsibility.

The Second Amendment is about a number of things, not just your 'right' to fight against 'big' government (questionable whether that is in the Second Amendment...what is 'big' government?) and/or tyranny. If you think that we are living under a tyrannical government then you should exercise your Second Amendment 'right' that you claim to be afforded to you.

There are way to main people draping themselves in the Constitution, and claiming that they have have the 'right' to take down a tyrannical government...by force if necessary. Go for it. Either exercise your Second Amendment 'right' to be free of tyranny or shut the hell up...unless you are more interested in bitching and moaning about how terrible the government is, but taking no steps to break free from it, or have solutions to the problem that will actually work. Political Rhetoric is all I see here in most of these "I have Second Amendment 'rights' that I can exercise" blah blah blah.

Do what everyone else does, vote. If you lose then you can complain for four more years, if you win, consider it a mandate.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
I've got a neighbor that made it quite clear that they were voting for Obama and the Dem's "to see that the wealth was spread around". It's working great for them as they now have to have garage sales to meet regular expenses due to the economy downturn.

I was going to respond to this but am not sure what to say. You think that spreading the wealth around is a bad thing? Well, you won't have to worry about that. The new figures that have come out show that the wealth is being consolidated at the top 1% (no matter who is in office) and that the gap between the 1% and the poor is widening, the middle class tipping into poverty. The wealth is being spread around.

The right have some people in such a frenzy about the government coming and taking your firearms away, and taxing the hell out of you. America is on the decline, and the gap between rich and poor is going to become even more stark, and we are going to be left without a middle class. All of you people that consider yourself to be middle class, be prepared...you are going to fall into the poverty category.

We are in a global economy that requires us to compete with States like China and India. America is going to lose. The politics of today, and the consolidation of wealth are breaking us, and both the right and left or culpable in this. Sometimes I depress the hell out of myself, but I believe that the Titanic is sinking unless we make fundamental structural changes to our system.

You can continue to clasp at this idea that if you vote out Obama and the Dem's that everything will be ok...such a simple solution to a complex problem--wishful thinking on your part that you think it is that simple.

We are headed for a breakdown in social order, be prepared, seriously. Either the majority are going to submit to a new type of rule that will be imposed on all Americans (who knows what that rule will be), or lines will be drawn and as they have always played out, it will play out of the barrel of a firearm and eventually people will grow tired of the killing and dying around them that they will go to the table and come to a consensus.

Politics has become so distorted on both sides, and people grasp for groups like the 'tea party' thinking that this party is going to somehow change some thing...they might change some thing, but you might not like what they have in mind.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
Plus what majority so many people are disillusioned with the two yahoos they give us to vote for that the "majority" don't even vote. Average election is around 30% I believe. So we have about 15% of the country dictating what the rest will do. ( And many in that group only vote for whom they believe to be the lesser of two evils).

The "30% number is more accurate for "midterm" elections. The last Presidential Election got almost 57% of the voters off their asses. The 2010 election was better than some years but only 41.6% of voters showed up.

What I find interesting is that even with the low turnouts, by extension low numbers of Dem's and Rep's voting, why Libertarian Candidates can't get more traction.

Regardless, it is apparent that the voters of this country are either happy enough to let the minority select their leaders or to dumb and lazy to do anything about it. How can we place all the blame for a crappy government on the leaders when there are so many that won't do anything about it but gripe.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Regardless, it is apparent that the voters of this country are either happy enough to let the minority select their leaders or to dumb and lazy to do anything about it. How can we place all the blame for a crappy government on the leaders when there are so many that won't do anything about it but gripe.

That's assuming that the people who are not voting are griping...maybe they just don't care.

The response I get from people when the topic of politics comes up is that they do not and can not stand politics. So, I am guessing most people are dumb to politics and lazy to politics in that they have given up seeing a point in being involved.

Heck, many people who vote, be it left or right, make it to the voting booth fueled by emotion (unless you consider the average person being glued to ten-second soundbites from FOX or MSNBC to be 'informative'...my conclusion that people need to be told what to think, how to think and controlled stands.), and not by reason. There were many millions of people who turned out to vote for Obama, not because they understood politics or what was going on, but because they were given something to believe in *rolls eyes*. The right took back the House this last midterm election, not because people who came out to vote were informed, nopers, they showed up because of fear. The left didn't show up because they thought they voted for someone who was going to make more substantive changes, but didn't. Obama is going to be hurt on the left, but it is because he didn't go far enough with the healthcare bill and they aren't to happy about the right receiving tax breaks (the rich should not receive tax breaks, they should receive tax increases. Actually, the rich should have the living piss taxed out of them...don't worry, they will still be rich.).
 
Last edited:

slowfiveoh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,415
Location
Richmond, VA
I could take the time to give you well analyzed, factual responses to government structure as well as the other comments Beretta has stated, but Beretta has simply decided that calling into question every analyzable fact, and then offering 0 substantiation to her ideology while you provide historical evidence for yours is somehow a meaningful argumentative style.

Here are some questions for you Beretta, and do not dodge them. Answer them factually:

#1. Do you have any citations from the framers themselves stating that the constitution is meant to be "interpreted" in multidirectional fashion? If not, what is your historical basis, if any, as to why the Constitution is meant to be twisted to whatever terms you deem acceptable at the moment?

#2. Are you aware that your appeals here for socialism (i.e. stating that structure in democracy inevitably fails) are flawed on the same principles you deem Democracy to be, (Where is your Soviet Union? How is North Korea doing?) while by way of comparison democracies have healthier, and freer citizenships regardless of?

#3. Do you truly not know the difference between a Republic and a Democracy?

If you cannot answer these questions with meritorious facts, not only are you ill equipped to respond to the conversation at hand here, but you are ill-equipped to vote.
 
Last edited:
Top