53 replies to this topic

[CatofWar]

......

The essence of humanity is freedom. Government — whether voted in peacefully or thrust upon us by force — is essentially the negation of freedom. Throughout the history of the world, people have achieved freedom when those in power have begrudgingly given it up. From the assassination of Julius Caesar to King John’s forced signing of the Magna Carta, from the English Civil War to the triumph of the allies at the end of World War II, from the fall of communism to the Arab Spring, governments have permitted so-called nobles and everyday folk to exercise more personal freedom as a result of their demands for it and their fighting for it. This constitutes power permitting liberty.

The American experience was the opposite. Here, each human being is sovereign, as the colonists were after the Revolution. Here, the delegation to the government of some sovereignty — the personal dominion over self — by each American permitted the government to have limited power in order to safeguard the liberties we retained. Stated differently, Americans gave up some limited personal freedom to the new government so it could have the authority and resources to protect the freedoms we retained. Individuals are sovereign in America, not the government. This constitutes liberty permitting power.
Yet we did not give up any natural rights; rather, we retained them. It is the choice of every individual whether to give them up. Neither our neighbors nor the government can make those choices for us, because we are all without the moral or legal authority to interfere with anyone else’s natural rights. Since the government derives all of its powers from the consent of the governed, and since we each lack the power to interfere with the natural rights of another, how could the government lawfully have that power? It doesn’t. Were this not so, our rights would not be natural; they would be subject to the government’s whims.

To assure that no government would infringe the natural rights of anyone here, the Founders incorporated Jefferson’s thesis underlying the Declaration into the Constitution and, with respect to self-defense, into the Second Amendment. As recently as two years ago, the Supreme Court recognized this when it held that the right to keep and bear arms in one’s home is a pre-political individual right that only sovereign Americans can surrender and that the government cannot take from us, absent our individual waiver.


Read more: http://p.washingtont.../#ixzz2HoxUxyEB
------

[Gazi]

BAck then the tyrant had muskets, not drones.

[CatofWar]

They still have skulls.

[NanuqoftheNorth]

[Zod]

Someone doesn't understand what a right is.

[NanuqoftheNorth]

Someone doesn't understand what a right is.

It was intended as humor, but since you mentioned it... FDR(100,000 Japanese Americans incarcerated without trial), GWB (Patriot Act), HO (Drone attack/targeting/killing Americans overseas without due process)? Seems like there is more than just one "someone doesn't understand what a right is", and it includes several "someones" that held/hold the highest office in the land.

[Davidson Deac II]

Fwiw, the government does have the right to suspend habeus corpus and therefore due process if the situation warrants it. The constitution specifically says it does.

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

The mistake the US made was that the roundup of Japanese citizens was applied in too broad a manner during the hysteria that occurred after Pearl Harbor and the Niihau incident, and the fear of a Japanese invasion of the West Coast. They should have been rounded up selectively as the Italians and Germans were. The manner of the roundup opened them up to well founded accusations of racism.

As far as the drones, they are going after legitimate military targets, imo similar to Union ships firing on Confederate raiders during the civil war without warning or due process.

[cookinwithgas]

Ive noticed that the people telling me about "rights" lately seem to be the least educated on how they came to be and how they actually work. It's a prerequisite for the gun goofballs to be able to think that they have "rights" that in fact are nothing of the sort.

[Delhommey]

If a blood thirsty dictator somehow takes power and starts confiscating weapons, I don't see how the Second Amendment would stop him.

This argument only makes since if you legitimately think we have anything close to Joseph Stalin and/or a total gun ban on our hands. If you honestly believe that to be true, you are insane or very immature.

[rippadonn]

While those in Washington find the 2nd amendment untouchable there are international types like the UN who would love nothing more than to unarm America. The world isn't so cut and dry of a place. There are all kinds of agendas working simultaneously, those to save and to free mankind and those to destroy or control mankind.

To call someone crazy for taking a position is in itself ignoring the other side of the same coin.

[gospodin shuttlesworth]

is this the part where you tell us all about how we're all going to be enslaved under agenda 21 or what

[Delhommey]

While those in Washington find the 2nd amendment untouchable there are international types like the UN who would love nothing more than to unarm America. The world isn't so cut and dry of a place. There are all kinds of agendas working simultaneously, those to save and to free mankind and those to destroy or control mankind.

To call someone crazy for taking a position is in itself ignoring the other side of the same coin.

Saying it's the "other side of the coin" gives it a validity it does not deserve.

[rippadonn]

Saying it's the "other side of the coin" gives it a validity it does not deserve.

You've misquoted me. I said " the other side of the SAME coin" the validity is therefore inherent. You are trying to say his point of contention is incorrect. What I am saying is both conditions can be and are present.

Just because something is outside of YOUR box doesn't make it untrue or stupid. I encourage different points of view on this forum. I've learned from different points of view on this forum. They should be respected.

[Delhommey]

If someone says eclipses happen because of a dragon eating the moon, I don't have to "respect their opinion".

The idea that the UN is trying to disarm America is the realm of borderline paranoid schizophrenics.

[rippadonn]

If someone says eclipses happen because of a dragon eating the moon, I don't have to "respect their opinion".

The idea that the UN is trying to disarm America is the realm of borderline paranoid schizophrenics.

What??? What was the recently signed UN Arms Treaty about, creating better rainbows? I think you're letting your emotions about guns cloud your rational.

There are many many many reasons to distrust the motives of the UN and you are oblivious to ALL of them.