Amendment 2: - Right to Bear Arms DAMN RIGHT! Get over it!

Originally posted by wasco2
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

It may be a natural right but governments love to take away rights whenever they can. Ask the Canadians, the British, the Australians, and if any are still around ask pre-WWII Germans. Fact is telling a gubmint bureaucrat, "I have an inalienable right to.....", is kind of like waving a red flag at a bull. He gets right pissy about it and sets to trying to prove the only rights you have are those allowed you by government.

Governments cannot take away natural unalienable rights. They can take away legal civil rights, but not natural unalienable rights. The only thing a government can do in regards to natural unalienable rights is piss all over them.

Bulls are stupid animals and Matadors wave red flags at bulls all the time right before they slaughter them.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by wasco2
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

It may be a natural right but governments love to take away rights whenever they can. Ask the Canadians, the British, the Australians, and if any are still around ask pre-WWII Germans. Fact is telling a gubmint bureaucrat, "I have an inalienable right to.....", is kind of like waving a red flag at a bull. He gets right pissy about it and sets to trying to prove the only rights you have are those allowed you by government.

Governments cannot take away natural unalienable rights. They can take away legal civil rights, but not natural unalienable rights. The only thing a government can do in regards to natural unalienable rights is piss all over them.

Bulls are stupid animals and Matadors wave red flags at bulls all the time right before they slaughter them.

Quote for truth.

You guys listen to the guy with the funny shaped head (In the avatar, of course. Im sure your head is perfectly shaped in reality) .. he has it nailed. Grab a flag folks...

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Governments cannot take away natural unalienable rights. They can take away legal civil rights, but not natural unalienable rights.

So you're saying the British still have the right to defend themselves and own the tools that will let them do it? I'm sure there are a lot of British in prison, and on their way, who will be glad to hear that.

reply to post by wasco2

So you're saying the British still have the right to defend themselves and own the tools that will let them do it? I'm sure there are a lot of British in prison, and on their way, who will be glad to hear that.

You, of course, had to butcher up what I wrote and only quote a smidgeon in order to justify this remark here. People in prison for exercising a right is the very evidence of rights being pissed on. The right wasn't taken away, government acted criminally in order to piss all over a right.

That people are murdered is not evidence that there is no right to life, it is evidence of criminality. That people are robbed is not evidence that there is no right to property, it is evidence of criminality. That people are imprisoned for defending themselves is not evidence that there is no right to self defense, it is evidence of criminality.

You're not defending criminality, are you?

Fact is telling a gubmint bureaucrat, "I have an inalienable right to.....", is kind of like waving a red flag at a bull. He gets right pissy about it and sets to trying to prove the only rights you have are those allowed you by government.

That Kind of reminds me of the Jack Nicholson quote from Easy Rider.

Of course, don't ever tell anybody that they're not free, 'cause then they're gonna get real busy killin' and maimin' to prove to you that they are. Oh, yeah, they're gonna talk to you, and talk to you, and talk to you about individual freedom. But they see a free individual, it's gonna scare 'em.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I'm going to stop here because I still think we are arguing semantics. I'll give you there SHOULD be inalenable rights but the fact is throughout history most of the things you claim as inalienable rights have been repressed and restricted. You claim the British government is a criminal enterprise but by many definitions that's not true. It is a legally elected and internationally recognized national governing body. It's laws are recognized as legal and enforced by state and local police. My point is if exercising some perceived "inalienable right" puts you at odds with the legal government and subjects you to prosecution and imprisonment then that right, effectively if not absoutely, does not exist.

reply to post by MikeNice81


Yeah, well, I saw "Easy Rider" a long time ago, like when it was first released in a theatre, so I suppose the two could be linked way back in the dim and dusty recesses of my mind.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Amendment 2: - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

OK, so whats so confusing here?

Law abiding US Citizens have the lawful right to keep and bear firearms! This isn't brain surgery here or even rocket science! My outburst was over a recently read post/reply [which will remain anonymous] with regards to which thread but, their argument against legally held/owned firearms is PURE BS!

I once managed a fairly active retail establishment back in the 90s and during a routine nightly bank drop I was confronted by an armed assailant. He pointed a revolver at me and made his demands. I was shocked at first but proceeded [thinking of my children] not making a fuss. After handing over to him the bank drop container he stuck his firearm in my face and made some half-Assed political statement.

I then reached into my pocket and produced my own "Legally owned hand gun" and showed him I wasn't one to be "F"d with! His whole demeanor changed at that point. His weapon was actually an early "Air soft" non lethal pistol. Had I'd been a stereotypical "Merican" I would have blown his brains out and killed him.

That didn't happen!

Enough said.

edit on 23-7-2011 by SLAYER69 because: Spelling: Note to self, MORE COFFEE

Please review this link and think about what is going on, this site is well put together, the best I have foiund so far.

discharge-debt.com...

reply to post by SLAYER69


Here is more from that site I listed earlier....."When Congress is operating in its exclusive jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, the Territories, and enclaves, it is important to remember that it has full authority to enact legislation as private acts pertaining to its boundaries, and it is not a state of the union of States because it exists solely by virtue of the compact/constitution that created it. The constitution does not say that the District of Columbia must guarantee a Republican form of Government to its own subject citizens within its territories. (See Hepburn & Dundas v. Ellzey, 6 US. 445(1805); Glaeser v. Acacia Mut. Life Ass'n., 55 F. Supp., 925 (1944); Long v. District of Columbia, 820 F.2d 409 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Americana of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Kaplus, 368 F.2d 431 (1966), among others)."


"The idea prevails with some -- indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar -- that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one, to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise." Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, supra.
The Constitution provides limited powers to federal government over the state Citizens. The federal government has unlimited powers over federal citizens because it is acting outside of the Constitution. Administrative laws are private acts and are not applicable to state Citizens. The Internal Revenue Code is administrative law.

------------------Attention-------------------

I've purposely let this thread run it's course without OP participation for a reason. I simply wanted to view others opinions on the topic.

To each his own! I've made my point while revealing a personal experience on the topic. As far as my penis size and or supposed compensation references...

Get a life and stop trying to take cheap emotionally pubescent jabs. It only demonstrates your lack of imagination and maturity.

I didnt read that Slayer as I havent been following this thread much- I wouldnt have even said anything to that, it didnt warrant a reply.

Anyway, the world knows America has a gun/weapon problem and a superiority complex, really that's not up for debate. But if I lived in America I would own a gun too. it would be stupid not to.

reply to post by wasco2

You claim the British government is a criminal enterprise but by many definitions that's not true.

I never made any such claim. I spoke directly to your lame attempt to equate the unlawful disarming of a populace as being evidence of unalienable rights not existing. Indeed, I think you are relying on this strawman in order to avoid answering the hard question I asked you, which was; are you defending criminality?

That said, it appears to me that most governments have become criminal enterprises, and while I did not say such a thing earlier, I have no problem saying it now.

It is a legally elected and internationally recognized national governing body.

Electing government officials does not give them immunity from the law anymore than the Divine Right Doctrine does. Further, what is legal is not at all the same as what is lawful.

It's laws are recognized as legal and enforced by state and local police.

Well, there you go then. When what is legal is recognized as lawful then, and only then, will Great Britain begin to see unalienable rights respected. I get that you don't have any respect for unalienable and lawful rights, but this lack of respect for them does not diminish the reality of these rights in any way.

My point is if exercising some perceived "inalienable right" puts you at odds with the legal government and subjects you to prosecution and imprisonment then that right, effectively if not absoutely, does not exist.

Had the Founders of the United States lost the Revolution for American Independence they would have been hanged for "crimes against the throne". Their hangings, had this happened, would not have undermined in the slightest unalienable rights.

Your profound disregard for the rights of people is less than impressive.

They want to take our guns now because when more people realize what is going on behind the scenes they will rise up and oust these crooked bastards that keep the population down.

There are criminals in DC who forgot they work for the people. The people forgot that this country belongs to them, not the bankers and their puppets in office

Without our firearms the crooks have little to fear from the people.

reply to post by lifecitizen

Anyway, the world knows America has a gun/weapon problem and a superiority complex, really that's not up for debate.

Not up for debate, is it? Now the world, or at the very least, that portion of the world reading this thread, know about your superiority complex.

Originally posted by lifecitizen
I didnt read that Slayer as I havent been following this thread much- I wouldnt have even said anything to that, it didnt warrant a reply.

Anyway, the world knows America has a gun/weapon problem and a superiority complex, really that's not up for debate. But if I lived in America I would own a gun too. it would be stupid not to.

If I lived in Greece I would want to own a gun. Same for Israel, in Asia, Anywhere in Africa, in England, In France, In South America, In Central America...particulary in Mexico. In Russia.

How do you get so provincial in your thinking to miss out on this line of thought??




Jean Paul Zodeaux wrote,

Electing government officials does not give them immunity from the law anymore than the Divine Right Doctrine does. Further, what is legal is not at all the same as what is lawful.

Oh..thank goodness someone else knows the difference in legal and lawful. Also great that someone else knows about Divine Right of Kings. These two concepts and understandings seem to be greatly missing from our educations today. Oliver Cromwell put the concept of Divine Right of Kings to bed when he backed the Beheading of Charles 1st in 1649 putting an end to the English Civil War.

Legal is not the same as lawful..indeed. Good to see someone else knows. Gives me hope for men.
Just as the Colour of Law is not the same as Law.


Thanks.
Orangetom

edit on 30-7-2011 by orangetom1999 because: (no reason given)