Breaking! Active shooter at clover park technical college.

[Citizen]

SNIP The "common tactic" is that you are obsessed with your petty cop-hate to the point of delusion, strawmen and silliness.

More evasion and ad hominem attack.

Keep it coming. We don't mind pointing it out. Honest.

 

[Freedom1Man]

The "common tactic" is that you are obsessed with your petty cop-hate to the point of delusion, strawmen and silliness.

Get over yourself. We are all fighting for the same cause - constitutional carry nationwide. You can keep seeing things that aren't there, getting offended for no reason, misrepresenting others' position and engaging in a circle jerk with the little cadre of cop haters, but it only makes you look silly.

I get it. You don't like cops. Wonderful. But regardless, we are here, we are fighting for RKBA and we aint going away merely because a small cadre is looking to get into arguments and getting offended for no reason. My favorite delusion (not yours) was that I was trying to suppress the rights of open carry longgunners, because I expressed my opinion about them. It's a wonderful thing that our firearms rights have been expanding over the last several decades, not to mention we are at a 40 yr low for crime. There's a lot to celebrate. So get over your petty prejudices and join the adults, those who can discuss topics without throwing in petty jabs at every turn, looking to get offended when no offense is given, looking to argue when you actually agree , etc.

Most people here are quite reasonable and the broad knowledge of law (both constitutional and case law) amongst the denizens here is quite refreshing. I enjoy discourse with the reasonable and will do my best to avoid getting drawn into your petty little snipe fests. Feel free to wallow in the mud and create controversy and positions so you can tilt against them full speed ahead

It's silly.

Firearms rights are expanding?

You mean returning to Constitutional intent perhaps? There was a time when one could simply order machineguns through a catalog or pick one up at the hardware store. When is that returning?

 

[Grapeshot]

We have met the enemy............

United we stand, divided we..........

Either we stand together or........

Gentlemen.....really, enough.

 

[PALO]

Firearms rights are expanding?

You mean returning to Constitutional intent perhaps? There was a time when one could simply order machineguns through a catalog or pick one up at the hardware store. When is that returning?

Imo, constitutional carry (see: SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED) is closest to constitutional intent. We probably agree on that. Yes, our right to buy machineguns is more limited than in the long ago. But overwhelmingly so more and more states have MOVED to "shall issue" and far more people live in jurisdictions that respect their right to RKBA than was true a couple of decades ago.

How many states are shall issue now vs. 30 yrs ago?

On the whole, firearms rights are an area where rights are expanding nationwide. That's a good thing. Maybe someday we will have constitutional carry nationwide. That would be optimal. We are far from optimal right now, but we are better off now vis a vis firearms right than at any point in recent history. And the trend continues with more and more states going to shall issue.

It's very heartening (not to mention that MJ is now legal in 2 states etc.) . Iow, not everything is gloom and doom.

 

[PALO]

How awesome is it that firearms rights have expanded in the last few decades? Lots of stuff is going the wrong way - unitary executive, drone murders, etc. etc.

But as for firearms, we should be happy that rights are expanding with the understanding that we have a ways to go. That little animated gif that shows states that are show issue over the years is enlightening. How many people live in shall issue states NOW vs. 30 yrs ago (it's also awesome that we are at a 4 decade low in crime rates, and our fatality rate on the roadways is 1/5 what it was at its peak)

 

[tombrewster421]

How awesome is it that firearms rights have expanded in the last few decades?

I would say that our RIGHTS have always been the same and that it's really the RESPECT for them that has been expanding.

 

[PALO]

I would say that our RIGHTS have always been the same and that it's really the RESPECT for them that has been expanding.

THat's true, from a natural rights perspective. Courts don't "grant" rights, they RECOGNIZE them.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

THat's true, from a natural rights perspective. Courts don't "grant" rights, they RECOGNIZE them.

I don't believe that at all.

The founders established our rights for us, and we're not maintaining them so they're going away.

natural rights is an artificial concept. there is no such thing, that's it. there is no group of people who enjoyed rights that were just given to them. they've been hard fought for.

I'll link this video because Yankee explains my philosophy alot better then I can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us6e2YU-Jtc

but he's right, rights are not universal, nothing special protects them over our willingness to intreprept and defend them. no one has had rights for free. they've always been paid for, in blood. and then have to be defended against usurpers, and if rights can be usurped then they're not truly natural or inalieble or "god-given"

 

[marshaul]

You're conflating a whole lot of things there, not to mention presenting as mutually exclusive two notions which aren't.

First of all, nothing about "natural rights" implies that these rights are "god-given" or "inalienable." (Although folks have certainly said both, which I'll get to in a moment.) Natural doesn't intend to imbue with a supernatural authority, nor to imply that such rights are ipso facto inviolable. Natural merely suggests that the rights are an extension of the basic, shared sense of justice which all societies evince.

Keep in mind, I'm not talking about the complex moral codes which have evolved over time, influenced by different religions and a host of other factors. I'm talking about the very basic stuff: you can't just come and kill me, because if you do I will try to kill you back to prevent that. Likewise, if I try to kill you I should expect you to try to kill me back to stop that. If I'm holding this apple (which I picked from a tree on my homestead), and you hit me to take it, you should expect me to hit you to take it back. And since we all share in common these expectations, we agree to organize our society around them, and to take some collective interest in seeing them maintained (and met) even in cases of power disparity, etc.

This is all that is meant by natural right: people will treat as owned property they acquire through their own efforts, defend life (and that property), and engage in voluntary relationships with other people. Rather than seeking to impede these natural and inevitable human endeavors (as some governments have and do), government should – if it is to do anything at all – ensure that they are respected equally for all its citizens.

As to the concept of "god-given" rights, I find it uninteresting and have rejected it (being an atheist). I won't give it further consideration.

The putative "inalienability" of rights is an attribute distinct from their being natural. Furthermore, the objection to "inalienability" is moot as nobody in the entire history of intellect has ever intended to argue that rights are not possibly violated – and indeed are not actually violated all the time, by governments and criminals alike. When someone speaks of the right to self-defense as being "inalienable", they don't mean government is unable to pass and enforce legislation against it. What they mean is that, when a man's life is on the line through no fault of his own, no law can stop him from doing what it takes to survive, and any law which imprisons him after the fact for doing so is simply in opposition to right.

That rights should – must – be defended is a reality not exclusive with these notions. In fact, I'd say we all agree unquestioningly that rights need to be actively defended (or won) to be exercised with impunity.

It's quite a leap from there, however, to accepting that government grants us rights, or is capable of doing anything more than – at its very ideal best – protecting them (say from criminals or foreign aggressors).

My rights – to life, property, and liberty – exist. Obviously.

I exercise them because I (we) haven't let government punish me for doing so.





(How's that for an understanding of rights, TheYankeeMarshal?)

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I don't believe that at all.

The founders established our rights for us, and we're not maintaining them so they're going away.

natural rights is an artificial concept. there is no such thing, that's it. there is no group of people who enjoyed rights that were just given to them. they've been hard fought for.

I'll link this video because Yankee explains my philosophy alot better then I can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us6e2YU-Jtc

but he's right, rights are not universal, nothing special protects them over our willingness to intreprept and defend them. no one has had rights for free. they've always been paid for, in blood. and then have to be defended against usurpers, and if rights can be usurped then they're not truly natural or inalieble or "god-given"

Well....since we are way off topic.....bologny.

Just because asshats infringe upon them does not mean they are not yours. You have the right to life, just because some asshat can murder you does not mean you still don't have that right, why do you carry a gun when you can?

The founders established no rights, read the declaration, how can they establish something that is "inalienable"....

Natural rights does not equal rights that are just given to them. You need to stop thinking of the state and as government as the be all to end all. Rights existed long before government this also shows a total lack of understanding of what natural rights means.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

The "common tactic" is that you are obsessed with your petty cop-hate to the point of delusion, strawmen and silliness.

Get over yourself. We are all fighting for the same cause - constitutional carry nationwide. You can keep seeing things that aren't there, getting offended for no reason, misrepresenting others' position and engaging in a circle jerk with the little cadre of cop haters, but it only makes you look silly.

I get it. You don't like cops. Wonderful. But regardless, we are here, we are fighting for RKBA and we aint going away merely because a small cadre is looking to get into arguments and getting offended for no reason. My favorite delusion (not yours) was that I was trying to suppress the rights of open carry longgunners, because I expressed my opinion about them. It's a wonderful thing that our firearms rights have been expanding over the last several decades, not to mention we are at a 40 yr low for crime. There's a lot to celebrate. So get over your petty prejudices and join the adults, those who can discuss topics without throwing in petty jabs at every turn, looking to get offended when no offense is given, looking to argue when you actually agree , etc.

Most people here are quite reasonable and the broad knowledge of law (both constitutional and case law) amongst the denizens here is quite refreshing. I enjoy discourse with the reasonable and will do my best to avoid getting drawn into your petty little snipe fests. Feel free to wallow in the mud and create controversy and positions so you can tilt against them full speed ahead

It's silly.

Sorry you are missing a lot, you may think all cops are being hated, you also may be totally oblivious to what you are posting. It's not a general cop hate on an individual level, ask yourself why other cops who are here have no problem and can discuss things head on and you have a problem with it and evade pointed discussions and questions. So instead of addressing you evade and project upon others the very thing we all see you are doing pretending to take the high road in an ill fated attempt of trying to make yourself look like the better person.

This incident was in Washington was this your department? Did you partake in this exercise of martial law?

 

[Trigger Dr]

Natural rights does not equal rights that are just given to them.

I find this hard to believe...Something from SVG that I am in complete agreement with him. If the "rights" are just given to them, they are not rights, but privleges.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I find this hard to believe...Something from SVG that I am in complete agreement with him. If the "rights" are just given to them, they are not rights, but privleges.

+1
We probably agree on more than we disagree, we just strongly disagree on a few points.......:lol:

 

[Trigger Dr]

+1
We probably agree on more than we disagree, we just strongly disagree on a few points.......:lol:

Wrong again

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Wrong again

Ok I am wrong.

I am a pro liberty, pro freedom, pro common law and natural law anti statist. Who is unafraid to speak out about the system when it is contrary to the principles of individual liberty and rights we are born with even when it contradicts the jingoistic nationalistic religious fervor of its proponents and those who work for it. I love my country I don't conflate that with the government.

Would be interesting to actually have you debate or counter anything I say with any logic, but since you are the judge that doesn't seem to like to do that......oh well....sorry I tried to be friendly to you.

 

[Trigger Dr]

Ok I am wrong.

I am a pro liberty, pro freedom, pro common law and natural law anti statist. Who is unafraid to speak out about the system when it is contrary to the principles of individual liberty and rights we are born with even when it contradicts the jingoistic nationalistic religious fervor of its proponents and those who work for it. I love my country I don't conflate that with the government.

Would be interesting to actually have you debate or counter anything I say with any logic, but since you are the judge that doesn't seem to like to do that......oh well....sorry I tried to be friendly to you.

SVG, Maybe I should have bolded the word COMPLETE in the earlier post.
I Believe in many of the same things as you, however, that does not mean that I am in COMPLETE agreement with you. As far as debate or counter anything anyone says that is counter to your views, seems to be nothing but BS as far as you are concerned.
As far as being friendly to me, that will not happen. We have never met, never spoken to each other besides the computer, and I frankly do not like you.
Have a nice day in your fantasy world.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

SVG, Maybe I should have bolded the word COMPLETE in the earlier post.
I Believe in many of the same things as you, however, that does not mean that I am in COMPLETE agreement with you. As far as debate or counter anything anyone says that is counter to your views, seems to be nothing but BS as far as you are concerned.
As far as being friendly to me, that will not happen. We have never met, never spoken to each other besides the computer, and I frankly do not like you.
Have a nice day in your fantasy world.

LOL....yes you must have made a wonderfully unbiased judge and cop.

Never did I say you were ever in complete agreement with me, where did you get that from?

If what I say seems to be BS you should be able to easily contradict it with logic right?

I rather don't mind you not liking me, I challenge your status quo, I logically point out the fallacies of your "fantasy world" since I don't subscribe to it I am a heretic to you..... and gladly so.

 

[Grapeshot]

Gentleman - I'm reminded of the expression, "If you you can't say somethin' nice, say nothing at all."

Such conversations are better by PM, if at all, as then the rest of the forum is not subjected to it.

 

[Difdi]

since it's still a schedule I drug under the federal codes.

What federal codes?

In 1917, the feds had almost the same degree of federal supremacy as they do now in 2013 (the only real difference now instead of then is the tomfoolery with the commerce clause). In 1917 they had to amend the US constitution to allow them to prohibit drinking alcohol nationally. If they hadn't ratified the 18th amendment, any such statute as the Volstead Act would have been struck down as unconstitutional under the 10th amendment. Then the 21st amendment repealed the 18th, but authorized the feds to prevent intoxicating liquors from being smuggled across borders into states they are illegal in.

Alcohol that won't poison you or make you go blind is not a naturally-occurring substance like cannabis blossoms. And yet, the feds had to amend the constitution to outlaw alcohol. So where's the amendment that lets them do the same with marijuana?

Here's the key issue: As long as all 50 states made marijuana illegal, the 21st amendment could be stretched to cover intoxicants in general, not just liquor...and the feds did so. But as soon as even one state legalizes something covered by the Controlled Substances Act, well, the feds have a problem. Federal supremacy absolutely lets them trample on state statutes and arguably state constitutions, but when the federal constitution conflicts with a federal statute, the federal statute loses every time.

So I say again, what federal codes?

 

[Citizen]

What federal codes?

In 1917, the feds had almost the same degree of federal supremacy as they do now in 2013 (the only real difference now instead of then is the tomfoolery with the commerce clause). In 1917 they had to amend the US constitution to allow them to prohibit drinking alcohol nationally. If they hadn't ratified the 18th amendment, any such statute as the Volstead Act would have been struck down as unconstitutional under the 10th amendment. Then the 21st amendment repealed the 18th, but authorized the feds to prevent intoxicating liquors from being smuggled across borders into states they are illegal in.

Alcohol that won't poison you or make you go blind is not a naturally-occurring substance like cannabis blossoms. And yet, the feds had to amend the constitution to outlaw alcohol. So where's the amendment that lets them do the same with marijuana?

Here's the key issue: As long as all 50 states made marijuana illegal, the 21st amendment could be stretched to cover intoxicants in general, not just liquor...and the feds did so. But as soon as even one state legalizes something covered by the Controlled Substances Act, well, the feds have a problem. Federal supremacy absolutely lets them trample on state statutes and arguably state constitutions, but when the federal constitution conflicts with a federal statute, the federal statute loses every time.

So I say again, what federal codes?

Oh, yes. Very nice. Thank you for that analysis. Very, very good.