Cohibra45
Member
Ruggles,
You do know the difference between a true 'Democracy' and a 'Republic' is don't you???
The Logic Behind The RKBA And Government Power
- Thread starter ConstitutionCowboy
- Start date
- Status
Ruggles,
You do know the difference between a true 'Democracy' and a 'Republic' is don't you???
Forklift352
Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2009
- Messages
- 48
I think the founding fathers had in mind that people that are fair and kind but
strong and armed would advance liberty.
Somehow Americans figured that we need a gov. to babysit and coddle. Pay for those that can't (or won't) take care of themselves.
And of course that comes at a steep price.
strong and armed would advance liberty.
Somehow Americans figured that we need a gov. to babysit and coddle. Pay for those that can't (or won't) take care of themselves.
And of course that comes at a steep price.
rainbowbob
Member
These concepts are the essence of our unique experiment in self-governance. Thanks, CC, for this thought-provoking essay (did you author it?)
jakemccoy
Member
Might makes right.
It is that simple sometimes, unfortunately.
It is that simple sometimes, unfortunately.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
rainbowbob said:
Yes. It began as an analysis. For me, it delineates the origin of government power and its real place in our society. The Second Amendment being absolute makes the line between our rights and our governance the biggest and brightest of all the lines between our rights and the powers we grant to government. I equate the RKBA to our right to breathe the oxygen we need to survive. Our right to breathe oxygen shall not be infringed just as our right to keep and bear arms, and our right to defend ourselves, shall not be infringed.
Woody
Last edited:
ConstitutionCowboy
member
jakemccoy said:
Might can make you the winner, but not necessarily right.
Woody
General Geoff
Member
Those "simplistic and uneducated statements" are the closest to the principles of the founders and their visions/intentions of a governmental infrastructure designed to protect individual liberty at its core. To call them simplistic and uneducated is to call the founding fathers the same. I do not hold to that.
yokel
Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,235
History will have to record that there has never been a truly benevolent government. Government is about power, and power is a zero-sum process. We are either leaders or we are led. When the government gains more power, it gains that power at the expense of the people it governs. When we agree to give the government more power, we are surrendering some of our own power. As government gains more power, we lose more and more of our freedom. If we surrender enough power, if we become dependent on the government, the government gains the advantage and we move closer and closer to tyranny and dictatorship. We will either control our government, as our Founding Fathers intended, or our government will control us.
"Those "simplistic and uneducated statements" are the closest to the principles of the founders and their visions/intentions of a governmental infrastructure designed to protect individual liberty at its core. To call them simplistic and uneducated is to call the founding fathers the same. I do not hold to that."
The following is all IMO and worth exactly what you paid for it!
The reality of the matter is that individual rights should not and do not have the ability to superseded the rights of society (and thus other individuals) as a whole. There are and should be limits to all rights, you can not have a society functions without those limits.
The debate since day one has been and continues to be the clash of personnel rights vs the rights of society. No one has or should have unlimited rights. You do not, I do not nor does anyone else. You can not reasonably expect to reap the benefits of society without having to take some of the parts you may not care for. That view, that some on here have expressed, that they can indeed "take what they want and ignore the rest" is simplistic and uneducated IMO.
Yours, mines or anyone else's interpretation of the founding documents is not absolute. The debate of what should be included in those documents was long and bitter, the debate over what those documents mean has been even longer and more bitter. 230+ years and the debate rages on with greater minds than anyone on here and yet no resolution. It is not as simple as some on here attempt to make it sound.
Funny how the founders knew this and put in procedures to allow changes to be made by "the people" thru their elective officials to those documents, almost like they knew times and situations would change and thus changes would be warranted and needed.
My intent is simply to let those interested (i.e newcomers) know that to support the 2nd A does not mean you have to desire or support the abolishing of existing firearms legislation. To read some of the post on these types of threads that could easily be the message they received. I do not want to lose them as allies in the current and upcoming fights for reasonable guns laws and thus I offer them a different view.
The vast majority of American favor certain types of gun laws, if this was not the case politicians long ago would have been placed into office to remove those laws. You or I may not like majority rules when it does not work in our favor but you and I are stuck with it non the less. To try and present a case to them (i.e. the American public) that we need no gun laws at all would be playing right into the hands of the anti 2nd A crowd. I hope we are all a little smarter than that.
Sad thing is that we all want to get to the same destination more or less but we all see differently the best way to get there. Sometimes along the way we disagree and say things in ways that are not very conducive to maintaining an alliance, which IMO is what we must do. I freely admit my fault as much as anyone here in this regard. I did not mean to insult or step on toes (well maybe just a little bit LOL) and apologize to anyone I came off to as a jerk.
I am as passionate about this subject as many of you are, I just see it needing to be handled a different way to reach a successful conclusion.
The following is all IMO and worth exactly what you paid for it!
The reality of the matter is that individual rights should not and do not have the ability to superseded the rights of society (and thus other individuals) as a whole. There are and should be limits to all rights, you can not have a society functions without those limits.
The debate since day one has been and continues to be the clash of personnel rights vs the rights of society. No one has or should have unlimited rights. You do not, I do not nor does anyone else. You can not reasonably expect to reap the benefits of society without having to take some of the parts you may not care for. That view, that some on here have expressed, that they can indeed "take what they want and ignore the rest" is simplistic and uneducated IMO.
Yours, mines or anyone else's interpretation of the founding documents is not absolute. The debate of what should be included in those documents was long and bitter, the debate over what those documents mean has been even longer and more bitter. 230+ years and the debate rages on with greater minds than anyone on here and yet no resolution. It is not as simple as some on here attempt to make it sound.
Funny how the founders knew this and put in procedures to allow changes to be made by "the people" thru their elective officials to those documents, almost like they knew times and situations would change and thus changes would be warranted and needed.
My intent is simply to let those interested (i.e newcomers) know that to support the 2nd A does not mean you have to desire or support the abolishing of existing firearms legislation. To read some of the post on these types of threads that could easily be the message they received. I do not want to lose them as allies in the current and upcoming fights for reasonable guns laws and thus I offer them a different view.
The vast majority of American favor certain types of gun laws, if this was not the case politicians long ago would have been placed into office to remove those laws. You or I may not like majority rules when it does not work in our favor but you and I are stuck with it non the less. To try and present a case to them (i.e. the American public) that we need no gun laws at all would be playing right into the hands of the anti 2nd A crowd. I hope we are all a little smarter than that.
Sad thing is that we all want to get to the same destination more or less but we all see differently the best way to get there. Sometimes along the way we disagree and say things in ways that are not very conducive to maintaining an alliance, which IMO is what we must do. I freely admit my fault as much as anyone here in this regard. I did not mean to insult or step on toes (well maybe just a little bit LOL) and apologize to anyone I came off to as a jerk.
I am as passionate about this subject as many of you are, I just see it needing to be handled a different way to reach a successful conclusion.
yokel
Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,235
Don't forget that pure democracy is a form of collectivism -- it readily sacrifices individual rights to majority wishes. Since it involves no Constitutional Bill of Rights, or at least, no working and effective one, the majority-of-the-moment can and does vote away the rights of the minority-of-the-moment, even of a single individual. This has been called 'mob rule,' the 'tyranny of the majority' and many other pejorative names. It is one of the greatest threats to liberty, the reason why America's Founding Fathers wrote so much so disparagingly of pure democracy.
Collectivism demands that the group be more important than the individual. It requires the individual to sacrifice himself for the alleged good of the group.
It sounds humane because it stresses the importance of human needs. In reality, it is little more than a rationalization for sacrificing you and me to the desires of others.
WinchesterAA
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 870
It's no problem, Ruggles.. I do wish to ask you, though, when the Americans decided to have the tea party, how do you think they decided how to handle that?
I mean, let's consider a hypothetical scenario that plays out, maybe not in your favor, but in the favor of a system you support..
If the majority of people in the country want to forfeit their ability to have children, and to enforce this law of no reproduction, the majority calls for the merciless slaughter of all who disobey, including their unborn or newborn child.
What would you if you had no children, but you did have a wife, and you both wanted children, but you would be killed if you did.. because of the majority of your countrymen?
For the sake of clarity, world population levels are fine, no overcrowding, and society is so pristine and shiney that the prisons are rarely needed.
still, if you get her pregnant..
I'm just interested in your perspective.
I mean, let's consider a hypothetical scenario that plays out, maybe not in your favor, but in the favor of a system you support..
If the majority of people in the country want to forfeit their ability to have children, and to enforce this law of no reproduction, the majority calls for the merciless slaughter of all who disobey, including their unborn or newborn child.
What would you if you had no children, but you did have a wife, and you both wanted children, but you would be killed if you did.. because of the majority of your countrymen?
For the sake of clarity, world population levels are fine, no overcrowding, and society is so pristine and shiney that the prisons are rarely needed.
still, if you get her pregnant..
I'm just interested in your perspective.
"It's no problem, Ruggles.. I do wish to ask you, though, when the Americans decided to have the tea party, how do you think they decided how to handle that?
I mean, let's consider a hypothetical scenario that plays out, maybe not in your favor, but in the favor of a system you support..
If the majority of people in the country want to forfeit their ability to have children, and to enforce this law of no reproduction, the majority calls for the merciless slaughter of all who disobey, including their unborn or newborn child.
What would you if you had no children, but you did have a wife, and you both wanted children, but you would be killed if you did.. because of the majority of your countrymen?
For the sake of clarity, world population levels are fine, no overcrowding, and society is so pristine and shiney that the prisons are rarely needed.
still, if you get her pregnant..
I'm just interested in your perspective."
Good question. My answer is a simple one, there comes a time when armed resistance is mandatory. I would put your example very much in that camp.
Just for the record I in no way think that current firearms legislation is oppressive, and it is not even near the armed resistance level. I do not realistically see anything in the near future that would cause me to choose arms over ballots.
I guess the line at which we decided that arms are the answer is different for everyone, same as it was back on this day in 1776.
I mean, let's consider a hypothetical scenario that plays out, maybe not in your favor, but in the favor of a system you support..
If the majority of people in the country want to forfeit their ability to have children, and to enforce this law of no reproduction, the majority calls for the merciless slaughter of all who disobey, including their unborn or newborn child.
What would you if you had no children, but you did have a wife, and you both wanted children, but you would be killed if you did.. because of the majority of your countrymen?
For the sake of clarity, world population levels are fine, no overcrowding, and society is so pristine and shiney that the prisons are rarely needed.
still, if you get her pregnant..
I'm just interested in your perspective."
Good question. My answer is a simple one, there comes a time when armed resistance is mandatory. I would put your example very much in that camp.
Just for the record I in no way think that current firearms legislation is oppressive, and it is not even near the armed resistance level. I do not realistically see anything in the near future that would cause me to choose arms over ballots.
I guess the line at which we decided that arms are the answer is different for everyone, same as it was back on this day in 1776.
christcorp
Member
In a perfect world; where EVERYONE respected EVERYONE ELSE'S rights; society, the people, and government could in fact be the way some here want it to be. And believe that it was designed. But the reality is; and I believe that the founding fathers understood this too; is that not everyone respects each other's rights or opinions. So instead of people refraining, modifying, or tempering THEIR RIGHTS in the spirit of mutual cooperation, and knowing that others would do the same for them; rules/laws/policies/etc... are required so that a set of boundaries are established that define WHERE one person's rights stop and another person's rights begin. This has existed since the beginning of time and I believe that according to the founding fathers, that THIS TOO WAS SELF EVIDENT in preserving a civil society. But unfortunately, there are some that don't see it that way. They prefer to believe that their rights are more important than anyone else's rights. They forget the entire purpose of the declaration and the constitution was to LIMIT GOVERNMENT. Not to limit the citizens. But when a person doesn't respect other's rights and try to make their rights paramount, they in fact do limit other citizens. Cooperation among the citizens is understood to be self evident. And there are times when socially accepted laws/rules/norms/policies/etc... are written and accepted by consensus of the citizenry.
"sacrificing you and me to the desires of others"
And in turn sacrificing others for the desire of you or I.
Some feel we need to cut the national defense budget drastically, I do not agree with this. On the other hand some think that the National Endowment for Arts should receive more tax dollars, I do not agree with this. Now seeing how both are funded by tax dollars from the American citizen and they disagree on how to spend that money how do we resolve this? We cut the defense budget some and raise the NEA budget some, neither side gets the amount of increase or decrease they want but we compromise on an amount. That in a nutshell is how our government has worked since it's inception (even during the great debates over the Bill Of Rights itself) and I have absolutely no problem with it working like that now and into the future.
300+ million people can not live in a society together without compromise. I no more want Obama as president than the liberals wanted Bush as president, too bad the American people over rule both of our desires or the way we think it should be.
And in turn sacrificing others for the desire of you or I.
Some feel we need to cut the national defense budget drastically, I do not agree with this. On the other hand some think that the National Endowment for Arts should receive more tax dollars, I do not agree with this. Now seeing how both are funded by tax dollars from the American citizen and they disagree on how to spend that money how do we resolve this? We cut the defense budget some and raise the NEA budget some, neither side gets the amount of increase or decrease they want but we compromise on an amount. That in a nutshell is how our government has worked since it's inception (even during the great debates over the Bill Of Rights itself) and I have absolutely no problem with it working like that now and into the future.
300+ million people can not live in a society together without compromise. I no more want Obama as president than the liberals wanted Bush as president, too bad the American people over rule both of our desires or the way we think it should be.
WinchesterAA
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 870
Well, so the problem seems to stem from the majority populations views on who should lead, and where he should lead us to. Currently, it would appear that long time conspiracy theorists weren't hitting too far from the truth.
No privacy is a problem.
Victimless crimes are a problem.
Our government believes we have a hard enough time wiping our behinds, and seeks to compensate for our incompetency by disarming us, reducing our financial wellbeing, increasing their influence on us, all the while encouraging the mindset that allows one to surrender oneself to someone else for little or no benefit. This is a problem.
We have no money.
Our infrastructure is aging and weak. Also very ugly, and with the large amounts of contract work going on, the jobs being done fall far short of passing in too many cases. This is a really big problem.
Our country is no longer independent. We hardly do anything for ourselves anymore, and we acquire most of what we have from another country. Not just that, but the products we have access to are crap. This is a problem. (Quick question for all.. Does the American flag you may or may not have put outside your house today have a made in china mark on it?)
So how do you change these things? We know what's wrong. Our countrymen don't understand life. Not even close. They don't understand nature, and the nature of evil men. They also hold a lot of power that they freely give away at a moment's notice.
Well, what if we had our own media outlet? We can make photoshopped advertisements that'd give hollywood a run for their money, and would that not be effective?
No privacy is a problem.
Victimless crimes are a problem.
Our government believes we have a hard enough time wiping our behinds, and seeks to compensate for our incompetency by disarming us, reducing our financial wellbeing, increasing their influence on us, all the while encouraging the mindset that allows one to surrender oneself to someone else for little or no benefit. This is a problem.
We have no money.
Our infrastructure is aging and weak. Also very ugly, and with the large amounts of contract work going on, the jobs being done fall far short of passing in too many cases. This is a really big problem.
Our country is no longer independent. We hardly do anything for ourselves anymore, and we acquire most of what we have from another country. Not just that, but the products we have access to are crap. This is a problem. (Quick question for all.. Does the American flag you may or may not have put outside your house today have a made in china mark on it?)
So how do you change these things? We know what's wrong. Our countrymen don't understand life. Not even close. They don't understand nature, and the nature of evil men. They also hold a lot of power that they freely give away at a moment's notice.
Well, what if we had our own media outlet? We can make photoshopped advertisements that'd give hollywood a run for their money, and would that not be effective?
"set of boundaries are established that define WHERE one person's rights stop and another person's rights begin"
IMO the problem arises when that boundary is not agreed upon by 2 parties. What / who decides then where or what that boundary is? I would say that you have to let the majority decide in most cases. Are there exceptions? Of course but they are far and few between IMO.
IMO the problem arises when that boundary is not agreed upon by 2 parties. What / who decides then where or what that boundary is? I would say that you have to let the majority decide in most cases. Are there exceptions? Of course but they are far and few between IMO.
Well Winchester I really do not see it as being anywhere as bad as you do honestly. I do not feel the end of America (even as we know it) is anywhere near, we like everyone else have our problems but our positives far far outweigh our negatives.
I can not remember when the last time I had any direct contact with anyone from the government outside of the postal service. I just do not see or feel the government control you speak of.
I have the privacy I choose to have. If I post on the internet, use my cell phone or credit cards I make the choice to give that privacy away for the sake of the benefit of those items. It is my choice to make. I do not fear having government officials knocking on my door, in 40+ years it has never happened to me. I do not dry thru checkpoints on the road nor do I have to request travel papers when I travel in the country. In terms of firearms I can sell and buy from / to private citizens without any government involvement at all and with complete privacy.
I see absolutely no way 300+ million people can live in a structured society and maintain 100% or even 90% of their privacy. The fact that we do have to sacrifice some privacy to reap the benefits of that society is one I am willing to make. Others can choose to do otherwise. I do have a problem with those that want the benefits but want to moan and groan about the sacrifice.
I guess we could go problem by problem you mentioned but I think you can see my train of thought so I am not sure it would prove worth our time.
While I am worried about certain aspects of my / our futures overall I am optimistic about where we are headed.
I can not remember when the last time I had any direct contact with anyone from the government outside of the postal service. I just do not see or feel the government control you speak of.
I have the privacy I choose to have. If I post on the internet, use my cell phone or credit cards I make the choice to give that privacy away for the sake of the benefit of those items. It is my choice to make. I do not fear having government officials knocking on my door, in 40+ years it has never happened to me. I do not dry thru checkpoints on the road nor do I have to request travel papers when I travel in the country. In terms of firearms I can sell and buy from / to private citizens without any government involvement at all and with complete privacy.
I see absolutely no way 300+ million people can live in a structured society and maintain 100% or even 90% of their privacy. The fact that we do have to sacrifice some privacy to reap the benefits of that society is one I am willing to make. Others can choose to do otherwise. I do have a problem with those that want the benefits but want to moan and groan about the sacrifice.
I guess we could go problem by problem you mentioned but I think you can see my train of thought so I am not sure it would prove worth our time.
While I am worried about certain aspects of my / our futures overall I am optimistic about where we are headed.
yokel
Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,235
"The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816
The authors of the Constitution felt that if the whole population were trained to arms and were in fact armed, no one would dare try to overthrow the Republic. What they established was a balance of power akin to the Mutually Assured Destruction concept which prevented a nuclear war during the Cold War. It was not that an armed population would have an easy time forcing a rogue army to behave, but the resulting civil war would be long, bloody, and as destructive as anything we have seen in Lebanon, the Balkans or Africa. It was an assurance that no one could profit from an attempt to seize power. It was not a preferred form of action. It was a result so terrible that no one would wish to risk the event.
The authors of the Constitution felt that if the whole population were trained to arms and were in fact armed, no one would dare try to overthrow the Republic. What they established was a balance of power akin to the Mutually Assured Destruction concept which prevented a nuclear war during the Cold War. It was not that an armed population would have an easy time forcing a rogue army to behave, but the resulting civil war would be long, bloody, and as destructive as anything we have seen in Lebanon, the Balkans or Africa. It was an assurance that no one could profit from an attempt to seize power. It was not a preferred form of action. It was a result so terrible that no one would wish to risk the event.
"It was a result so terrible that no one would wish to risk the event."
Good post. I agree which is why I see nothing in the near future that could make me choose to resort to an armed response.
Although countless times in the past soldiers have turned and used their weapons on their own citizens I wonder how the completely volunteer forces we now have would react if ordered to do so under questionable circumstances. I do not think we would see a very unified response against U.S. citizens from them.
Good post. I agree which is why I see nothing in the near future that could make me choose to resort to an armed response.
Although countless times in the past soldiers have turned and used their weapons on their own citizens I wonder how the completely volunteer forces we now have would react if ordered to do so under questionable circumstances. I do not think we would see a very unified response against U.S. citizens from them.
yokel
Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,235
It has been a long while since there was a land-based war in the United States. If such a war took place, our cities would look just as devastated as those in Afghanistan or Iraq. Our children would be just as pathetic. Our population would starve just as readily. It is not an undertaking that any sane person would willingly engage in.
The American military have a long, honorable and good tradition of not being political. The Constitution places the military under the control of civil authorities elected by, and responsible to, the people. That is as it should be.
The American military have a long, honorable and good tradition of not being political. The Constitution places the military under the control of civil authorities elected by, and responsible to, the people. That is as it should be.
Seminole
Member
Ruggles said:
Please define "rights."
DRZinn
Member
I say your house belongs to me, you say it does not. Let's compromise.
Why?
Why not?
WinchesterAA
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 870
In response to ruggles - This is what I see, and this is what I want to see..
but first, the reason why I see it this way. I believe life is exceptional. As common as it is, it is still incredibly rare.. You'll only get one. It is everything. I respect it, and wish I could do more. Not so surprising...
What I see right now is a nation that isn't trying. We've, as a country, given up on our own success a long time ago. Since that point, we've been eating away at our system like the acid in your stomach eats away the lining when you're starving.
This probably has a lot to do with our politicians and media. With the politicians lying about everything from blowjobs to being a hunter, and the media emphasizing all of these different whacky details like they make so and so special.. It creates a really unhappy atmosphere for me. I don't enjoy living here, where I'm assumed incompetent and full of sh*t until proven otherwise, and when interacting with the government, the majority of the time they'd have me believing they're scared of me.. What the hell did I ever do to anybody to deserve that? Well, as I can see, that's not the question to be asking.. What the hell did everyone else do to bring society down to that point, where all of a sudden people are afraid, or unnerved by me.. I dress fine.. clean clothes, tidy appearance, respectful demeanor.. why does that indicate mistrust? Could it be that these employers might have seen something similar to the effect of joe shmo the drug dealer decides he wants to get a job.. He cuts his hair, changes his clothes, packs the fake pee into his pants, and heads out the door..
All of a sudden, the wolf and the sheep are indistinguishable, and now it's entirely possible that anyone could be both, metaphorically speaking of course.. the wolf and sheep thing is pretty stupid, but the associations related to wolf/sheep are fairly sound IMO, so for the purpose of conveying a message in as few words as possible.
we're all bad guys.. and I'm sure you'd think to yourself if you were to hear that from someone.. "No I'm not.."
Life as it is now is perfect as far as the necessities are concerned, I mean you can get a crappy house/apartment with AC and a fridge and be good to go with a minimum wage job here in Tx, and food is located within 25 feet of you, but the attitude makes me wish I'd never been born. I'm excited about what we can do with what we've got on this rock, and what we will be able to do with other rocks in our system, but to get back on track, and start working to better the human experience would require the average adult to not be a loathsome, apathetic soul who is as unconcerned as he is ignorant.
The government, society, and all of the things involved therein don't mean sh*t to me. It's what they were put in place for that means something. Government and society are tools. We built these tools so we could get away from the suck of the past.. life before electricity, doctors, the internet, fast cars and planes, det chord, and cranberry sauce. All of these things are very nice for what they do, and no one can deny that every one of em could be substantially improved. Our tools need to be maintained, they're corroded and nasty at the moment.
Life isn't going to stop, people aren't going to stop, and it seems to me that we should be concerned quite a bit about our children, and their children.. Are they going to learn more than we did, or less? Will they be learning the exact same lessons we've learned, and reaching the exact same conclusions we did/will have?
If I knew that my actions now could allow my child to fastforward to a point of knowledge on-level with my own, at half the age, then he could use the rest of that time to push further than I could. The same could be true for many others.
It doesn't work like that, though. Instead education is minimal, responsibility is the enemy, and trust isn't something you should bother yourself with.
I would like the opposite.
but first, the reason why I see it this way. I believe life is exceptional. As common as it is, it is still incredibly rare.. You'll only get one. It is everything. I respect it, and wish I could do more. Not so surprising...
What I see right now is a nation that isn't trying. We've, as a country, given up on our own success a long time ago. Since that point, we've been eating away at our system like the acid in your stomach eats away the lining when you're starving.
This probably has a lot to do with our politicians and media. With the politicians lying about everything from blowjobs to being a hunter, and the media emphasizing all of these different whacky details like they make so and so special.. It creates a really unhappy atmosphere for me. I don't enjoy living here, where I'm assumed incompetent and full of sh*t until proven otherwise, and when interacting with the government, the majority of the time they'd have me believing they're scared of me.. What the hell did I ever do to anybody to deserve that? Well, as I can see, that's not the question to be asking.. What the hell did everyone else do to bring society down to that point, where all of a sudden people are afraid, or unnerved by me.. I dress fine.. clean clothes, tidy appearance, respectful demeanor.. why does that indicate mistrust? Could it be that these employers might have seen something similar to the effect of joe shmo the drug dealer decides he wants to get a job.. He cuts his hair, changes his clothes, packs the fake pee into his pants, and heads out the door..
All of a sudden, the wolf and the sheep are indistinguishable, and now it's entirely possible that anyone could be both, metaphorically speaking of course.. the wolf and sheep thing is pretty stupid, but the associations related to wolf/sheep are fairly sound IMO, so for the purpose of conveying a message in as few words as possible.
we're all bad guys.. and I'm sure you'd think to yourself if you were to hear that from someone.. "No I'm not.."
Life as it is now is perfect as far as the necessities are concerned, I mean you can get a crappy house/apartment with AC and a fridge and be good to go with a minimum wage job here in Tx, and food is located within 25 feet of you, but the attitude makes me wish I'd never been born. I'm excited about what we can do with what we've got on this rock, and what we will be able to do with other rocks in our system, but to get back on track, and start working to better the human experience would require the average adult to not be a loathsome, apathetic soul who is as unconcerned as he is ignorant.
The government, society, and all of the things involved therein don't mean sh*t to me. It's what they were put in place for that means something. Government and society are tools. We built these tools so we could get away from the suck of the past.. life before electricity, doctors, the internet, fast cars and planes, det chord, and cranberry sauce. All of these things are very nice for what they do, and no one can deny that every one of em could be substantially improved. Our tools need to be maintained, they're corroded and nasty at the moment.
Life isn't going to stop, people aren't going to stop, and it seems to me that we should be concerned quite a bit about our children, and their children.. Are they going to learn more than we did, or less? Will they be learning the exact same lessons we've learned, and reaching the exact same conclusions we did/will have?
If I knew that my actions now could allow my child to fastforward to a point of knowledge on-level with my own, at half the age, then he could use the rest of that time to push further than I could. The same could be true for many others.
It doesn't work like that, though. Instead education is minimal, responsibility is the enemy, and trust isn't something you should bother yourself with.
I would like the opposite.
Last edited:
christcorp
Member
Zinn; there is a big difference between compromising and being an extremist. In compromising, you aren't giving up your rights. You're simply "Taking Turns". In the right of "Free Speech", do you think you are giving up YOUR right because you allowed yourself to breath and let someone else speak? No, you haven't given up any rights. But you have cooperated. Your example of "This is my house" is silly and extremist. But if I say property is mine and you say no, it's yours; then obviously we go to an arbitration (The law) to determine who actually owns the property. That's not a compromise. Again, silly analogy.
However; because this is a gun site, we can use guns as an example of compromise. If the declaration says that we are BORN, and "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Well, in this alone, it could be argued that ALL people from the time they are born have these rights. And yet, as a society, we AGREE that not all human are able or responsible enough to exercise these rights at birth. I.e. You don't allow your 7 year old child the RIGHT of "Free Speech". You don't Allow him/her to say: "F You Dad". You don't allow your 12 year old; in "THEIR PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS" rent a car and drive 100 miles an hour down the street. You also wouldn't allow your 8 year old to go to the Pawn Shop and buy the 9mm pistol with their Birthday Money. But the question you should be asking yourself is: "WHY NOT?" Obviously, these "Truths are self evident". They aren't mature or responsible enough. Not for themselves, or for society. Because such action do affect others and THEIR LIFE, LIBERTY, and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.
So, if you are a Responsible and mature individual; and the government has no reason in the world to deny you purchasing a gun; and to ensure that society as a whole is allowed their Life, Liberty, and THEIR Pursuit of Happiness; please tell me how doing an INSTANT background check is infringing on your right to Keep and Bear arms??? Now I'm not talking about the "PROCESS ITSELF" that may have some flaws in it and need to be corrected. We can always make things better. But there are those here trying to say that there SHOULDN'T be ANY LAWS concerning our RIGHT to Keep and Bear arms. The problem with this way of thinking is that it would have to apply also to the first amendment. That means people would be ALLOWED to verbally abuse you with racial slurs and slander. They would be ALLOWED to walk into a theater and yell FIRE just to see people panic. They would be ALLOWED to say their religion allows them rape and beat their wives; sacrifice stray animals and hang them in the public square; and KILL any non-believer in their Religion.
The problem is that people insist on over looking this fact. You can't say that the "Society" can't have laws, rules, policies, etc... for the 2nd amendment; YET they CAN have laws, rules, policies, etc... for the 1st amendment. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. The moment the Declaration said: "ONE PEOPLE" and the constitution said: "We the People"; it is "Self Evident" that there would have to be Rules, Laws, Policies, etc.... to maintain order with all the numerous opinions and positions on life. This doesn't mean you are giving up any rights. You have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. But you DON'T have the RIGHT to walk down the street and shoot every stray animal, every street sign, every person, etc.... that you see. When you do, you are depriving others of their RIGHT to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. And because people WILL have differing opinions on where the line is on "Other People's Rights"; rules, laws, policies, etc.... are required.
And sorry, but to believe otherwise than that a society MUST have laws, rules, and often times compromises in exercising Rights, can't be argued. Because there's not 1 person here on this forum or on the planet that has never come across a situation where someone did or said something that you didn't like; and it is society's laws/rules that deter and prevent you from kicking the crap out of or killing that individual. Without the laws/rules/etc... there would be complete anarchy. That is human nature and natural law. And the founding fathers probably didn't mention this because they too knew it to be self evident. If you notice, the declaration and constitution don't really speak of Citizens vs Citizens. That is self evident. They speak of Citizens vs Government. They didn't want a government making laws/rules/etc... that gave the government more power and took power AWAY from the citizens. Making laws/rules/policies such as an instant background check; being a certain age to own a gun; being mentally stable; not being a felon; etc... are NOT LAWS THAT GIVE THE GOVERNMENT POWER OR TAKE POWER AWAY FROM THE CITIZENS. These are societal laws. The fact that you CAN Keep and Bear arms means that you have RETAINED the power to resist the government if need be. The laws associated with the guns do not stop you from Keeping and Bearing arms. They simply ensure that the rest of society is allowed to their right of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Let me qualify however, as I've said numerous times, that this is NOT to say that some of these laws/rules/policies/etc... don't need to be changed/corrected. Many definitely do. And the reason for that is because we have 50 states that all interpret differently the state's role in preserving social peace. It is wrong for a state to take months and months to process permits and licenses for a person to LEGALLY exercise their right to Keep and Bear arms. It need to be INSTANT!!! Many states, it IS instant. Those states aren't infringing on the Rights. I believe that New Jersey for example IS INFRINGING on the rights of their citizens. The state has the power if they deem necessary to issue permits or licenses to it's citizens. There are arguments on both sides for that. I won't argue that. But if a citizen says: "Hmmmm, I would like to buy a gun". They should be able to get a gun THAT DAY, right then and there. They shouldn't have to wait months. If New Jersey can't do the background check and paperwork process that they WANT right then and there; then the benefit of the doubt MUST be given to the citizen. It is NOT the responsibility of the citizen to PROVE THEY ARE WORTHY. It's the responsibility of the STATE to PROVE the citizen is NOT WORTHY. And if they can't do it instantly, then they better work on an IMPROVED SYSTEM. But until then, the benefit of the doubt goes to the citizen.
This is what the supreme court needs to address and rule on. The state can decide all the procedures they want for legally disqualifying an individual from being allowed to exercising their right to keep and bear arms. This could be felony offenses where a GUN was used in the crime. It could be drug addiction. It could be mental instability. Whatever the disqualification is; assuming THE PEOPLE vote and agree to it; that would be legal. However; if the state can't do this process instantly, then the citizen should be able to walk out the door of the gun shop immediately after paying for the gun. And if they want some type of "License" so police, hospitals, dealers, private sellers, etc.... have some sort of proof that the person is qualified; then that's fine too as long as it's INSTANT. The citizen should NOT be denied even temporarily from being allowed to exercise their rights because the government/state is INEFFICIENT.
And personally; I have NEVER MINDED if the government knew that I had guns. Personally; I WANT the government to know EXACTLY HOW MANY PEOPLE OWN GUNS in our country. I don't want it to be some stupid pollster giving the government advice. I don't want some Washington D.C. flunky advisor trying to tell congress what they think. I want congress and the president to KNOW beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the PEOPLE of the United States are armed; and that they (The government) doesn't have enough people or resources to try and STEAL the country from the people. When it's pollings and advisors, the government can get a "False sense of Power". But when there's an actual stat that says: "Mr. President; there are exactly 85,564,786 citizens in this country that OWN guns. And there are approximately 250,000,000 adults in the United States our of 330,000,000 total citizens. So that means that approximately 33% of all adults in the United States has at least 1 gun. Then the government can say: "Crap; there's no way we can fight 85,564,786 people at the same time. I guess we'll have to find another way". Yes, I DEFINITELY want the government to know. Our country proudly displays our Nuclear Arsenal and military strength as a MEANS OF DETERRENCE to other countries. Well I want American Gun Owners to proudly display our numbers and strength as a MEANS OF DETERRENCE to OUR GOVERNMENT.
However; because this is a gun site, we can use guns as an example of compromise. If the declaration says that we are BORN, and "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Well, in this alone, it could be argued that ALL people from the time they are born have these rights. And yet, as a society, we AGREE that not all human are able or responsible enough to exercise these rights at birth. I.e. You don't allow your 7 year old child the RIGHT of "Free Speech". You don't Allow him/her to say: "F You Dad". You don't allow your 12 year old; in "THEIR PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS" rent a car and drive 100 miles an hour down the street. You also wouldn't allow your 8 year old to go to the Pawn Shop and buy the 9mm pistol with their Birthday Money. But the question you should be asking yourself is: "WHY NOT?" Obviously, these "Truths are self evident". They aren't mature or responsible enough. Not for themselves, or for society. Because such action do affect others and THEIR LIFE, LIBERTY, and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.
So, if you are a Responsible and mature individual; and the government has no reason in the world to deny you purchasing a gun; and to ensure that society as a whole is allowed their Life, Liberty, and THEIR Pursuit of Happiness; please tell me how doing an INSTANT background check is infringing on your right to Keep and Bear arms??? Now I'm not talking about the "PROCESS ITSELF" that may have some flaws in it and need to be corrected. We can always make things better. But there are those here trying to say that there SHOULDN'T be ANY LAWS concerning our RIGHT to Keep and Bear arms. The problem with this way of thinking is that it would have to apply also to the first amendment. That means people would be ALLOWED to verbally abuse you with racial slurs and slander. They would be ALLOWED to walk into a theater and yell FIRE just to see people panic. They would be ALLOWED to say their religion allows them rape and beat their wives; sacrifice stray animals and hang them in the public square; and KILL any non-believer in their Religion.
The problem is that people insist on over looking this fact. You can't say that the "Society" can't have laws, rules, policies, etc... for the 2nd amendment; YET they CAN have laws, rules, policies, etc... for the 1st amendment. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. The moment the Declaration said: "ONE PEOPLE" and the constitution said: "We the People"; it is "Self Evident" that there would have to be Rules, Laws, Policies, etc.... to maintain order with all the numerous opinions and positions on life. This doesn't mean you are giving up any rights. You have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. But you DON'T have the RIGHT to walk down the street and shoot every stray animal, every street sign, every person, etc.... that you see. When you do, you are depriving others of their RIGHT to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. And because people WILL have differing opinions on where the line is on "Other People's Rights"; rules, laws, policies, etc.... are required.
And sorry, but to believe otherwise than that a society MUST have laws, rules, and often times compromises in exercising Rights, can't be argued. Because there's not 1 person here on this forum or on the planet that has never come across a situation where someone did or said something that you didn't like; and it is society's laws/rules that deter and prevent you from kicking the crap out of or killing that individual. Without the laws/rules/etc... there would be complete anarchy. That is human nature and natural law. And the founding fathers probably didn't mention this because they too knew it to be self evident. If you notice, the declaration and constitution don't really speak of Citizens vs Citizens. That is self evident. They speak of Citizens vs Government. They didn't want a government making laws/rules/etc... that gave the government more power and took power AWAY from the citizens. Making laws/rules/policies such as an instant background check; being a certain age to own a gun; being mentally stable; not being a felon; etc... are NOT LAWS THAT GIVE THE GOVERNMENT POWER OR TAKE POWER AWAY FROM THE CITIZENS. These are societal laws. The fact that you CAN Keep and Bear arms means that you have RETAINED the power to resist the government if need be. The laws associated with the guns do not stop you from Keeping and Bearing arms. They simply ensure that the rest of society is allowed to their right of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Let me qualify however, as I've said numerous times, that this is NOT to say that some of these laws/rules/policies/etc... don't need to be changed/corrected. Many definitely do. And the reason for that is because we have 50 states that all interpret differently the state's role in preserving social peace. It is wrong for a state to take months and months to process permits and licenses for a person to LEGALLY exercise their right to Keep and Bear arms. It need to be INSTANT!!! Many states, it IS instant. Those states aren't infringing on the Rights. I believe that New Jersey for example IS INFRINGING on the rights of their citizens. The state has the power if they deem necessary to issue permits or licenses to it's citizens. There are arguments on both sides for that. I won't argue that. But if a citizen says: "Hmmmm, I would like to buy a gun". They should be able to get a gun THAT DAY, right then and there. They shouldn't have to wait months. If New Jersey can't do the background check and paperwork process that they WANT right then and there; then the benefit of the doubt MUST be given to the citizen. It is NOT the responsibility of the citizen to PROVE THEY ARE WORTHY. It's the responsibility of the STATE to PROVE the citizen is NOT WORTHY. And if they can't do it instantly, then they better work on an IMPROVED SYSTEM. But until then, the benefit of the doubt goes to the citizen.
This is what the supreme court needs to address and rule on. The state can decide all the procedures they want for legally disqualifying an individual from being allowed to exercising their right to keep and bear arms. This could be felony offenses where a GUN was used in the crime. It could be drug addiction. It could be mental instability. Whatever the disqualification is; assuming THE PEOPLE vote and agree to it; that would be legal. However; if the state can't do this process instantly, then the citizen should be able to walk out the door of the gun shop immediately after paying for the gun. And if they want some type of "License" so police, hospitals, dealers, private sellers, etc.... have some sort of proof that the person is qualified; then that's fine too as long as it's INSTANT. The citizen should NOT be denied even temporarily from being allowed to exercise their rights because the government/state is INEFFICIENT.
And personally; I have NEVER MINDED if the government knew that I had guns. Personally; I WANT the government to know EXACTLY HOW MANY PEOPLE OWN GUNS in our country. I don't want it to be some stupid pollster giving the government advice. I don't want some Washington D.C. flunky advisor trying to tell congress what they think. I want congress and the president to KNOW beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the PEOPLE of the United States are armed; and that they (The government) doesn't have enough people or resources to try and STEAL the country from the people. When it's pollings and advisors, the government can get a "False sense of Power". But when there's an actual stat that says: "Mr. President; there are exactly 85,564,786 citizens in this country that OWN guns. And there are approximately 250,000,000 adults in the United States our of 330,000,000 total citizens. So that means that approximately 33% of all adults in the United States has at least 1 gun. Then the government can say: "Crap; there's no way we can fight 85,564,786 people at the same time. I guess we'll have to find another way". Yes, I DEFINITELY want the government to know. Our country proudly displays our Nuclear Arsenal and military strength as a MEANS OF DETERRENCE to other countries. Well I want American Gun Owners to proudly display our numbers and strength as a MEANS OF DETERRENCE to OUR GOVERNMENT.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked