Gene Frenkle Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 First of all, epic reading comprehension fail and an introduction of a poorly constructed strawman. Secondly, when you think about the protection of your rights I offer you something to consider: The Freedom of Speech is not protected by the Constitution, the Congress, or the Supreme Court. Nor is it protected by your voice or your opinion. Similarly, your Freedom of the Press and your Right to Peaceably Assemble or The Freedom of Associate are not safeguarded by the pen and your desire to spend time with others of your choosing respectively. Your Freedom of Religion is not shieldeded by your faith. Your Right to Travel is not insured by your legs. Your Right to Vote is not guarenteed by your ballot. And even more to the point... your Right to Bear Arms is not protected by the Second Amendment. All of these rights we hold dear, every last solitary one of them, are defended by guns and the men and women willing to use them in that defense, who value the concept of freedom for their children more than they value their own lives. Men championing freedom cannot logically be outlaws under any just system of government. Likewise, no despotic government can logically be considered valid in their attempts to impose law. What if you were instead championing your freedom to have sex with underage boys? Or your freedom to buy and shoot up heroin? Would exercising either of freedoms make you an outlaw? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
section122 Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 (edited) They cease to be police officers when they visit unjust force apon otherwise peaceful citizens. A badge is not licence to suspend the rights of the citizen; nor is an unjust law reasonable cause for a law enforcement officer to act as the hand of tyranny. Police officers have the right, and the choice, to not enforce these laws. Furthermore, their jobs are not more important than the rights of the citizens which they took an oath to protect. Armed men coming to my door to take what is mine will be met with a response approriate to their presence. Do you really think that this is how they will enforce the law? Is this how they enforce any law?! Being a police officer means you serve and protect the people. Honestly I feel the need to be protected from people like you. Not gun enthusiasts but gun nuts. You are willing to kill police officers! You are willing to leave children parent less! All because their job has told them what they need to do. Police officers enforce the laws but they certainly don't make them. They also won't bring the swat team to your house because you have 8 bullets instead of 7 in your clip. Your paranoia is concerning. disagree. this was exactly the intention for the second amendment. the constitution is an agreement, a contract between the public and those they choose to lead them. it gives the public the teeth to ensure that their leaders keep their end of the bargain. when they fail to keep their end of the bargain... Yes in 1775 when faced against a king who was thousands of miles away. The second amendment does not offer up the right to kill police officers because you disagree with a law. Thoughts like this are why people can justify in their head murdering abortion doctors. Ya know those backwards gun toting Afghanistanians have fended off two world powers in the last 30 years. They don't have tanks or cannon either, just Ak 47's and a few rocket propelled grendades, but yet, both Russia, and now the US are leaving their country. Sure Russia and the US inflicted great pain to the those nasty despots, but they STILL have their country. Last time I checked, the US was much larger, provided much more cover, and we're free to associate. If the US military had the stomach for armed assault on its own people, I suspect it wouldn't last too long, and I can assure you that it wouldn't last anywhere near as long as Iraq or Afghanistan. You don't have to win an all out head to head rebellion, you just need to make a point, scramble a few eggs and you'll be eating your omlet in no time. Tim- If the us military had the stomach for armed assault on the american people it wouldn't last to long. People would surrender very quickly. No matter how many people had their own guns. As for Afghanistan I have no idea how a COUNTRY is relevant to a person or group fighting against the US. They have an army/armies, gun nuts don't. Again I have no issue with gun ownership in America but some of the lengths people are willing to go to protect the right to own something is disturbing to me. if everybody thought like you in 1775, this forum would be dedicated to a different kind of football. Yes 1775. Some interesting laws that have been on the books in the u.s.: Incestuous Marriage was legal It is considered an offense to open an umbrella on a street, for fear of spooking horses It is illegal to wear a fake moustache that causes laughter in church. Putting salt on a railroad track may be punishable by death. It is legal to drive the wrong way down a one-way street if you have a lantern attached to the front of your automobile. A person may not walk around on Sundays with an ice cream cone in his/her pocket. My point? Sometimes laws outlive their usefulness. you're right, it isn't 1775, but human nature doesn't change. as the adage goes, those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. DOOMED. Well good to know if we are ever overseen by an imperial nation in Europe we will be all set. This quote gets so misused On the upside, we are grateful that people like you are here just in case. You remind me of the two guys running from tiger. One guy says "I don't know how we can outrun him," and the other points out, "I don't need to outrun him. I only need to outrun you." Thanks for being easy to outrun. We won't be running... we don't have these guns so the big scary tigers aren't going to be chasing after us. Edited January 15, 2013 by section122 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 What if you were instead championing your freedom to have sex with underage boys? Or your freedom to buy and shoot up heroin? Would exercising either of freedoms make you an outlaw? Neither of those are protected by the Bill of rights. Now you are just being a dumba$$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 Neither of those are protected by the Bill of rights. Now you are just being a dumba$$. How about a nuclear warhead then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 (edited) What if you were instead championing your freedom to have sex with underage boys? In our country we place the rights of minors under stewardship until they reach the age of majority. We do this for reasons of biological and emotional development, with the scientific understanding that children are incapable of making complex emotional decisions until later in life. Given this, children are unable to give legal consent, and taking sex from another person without their consent is an assault on their freedoms. One cannot logically have the rights to impose on the rights of another. Or your freedom to buy and shoot up heroin? Yes, as a person entering into voluntary exchange followed by a personal behavior isn't harming anyone else, and requires the consent of noone else. Edited January 16, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 In our country we place the rights of minors under stewardship until they reach the age of majority. We do this for reasons of biological and emotional development, with the scientific understanding that children are incapable of making complex emotional decisions until later in life. Given this, children are unable to give legal consent, and taking sex from another person without their consent is an assault on their freedoms. One cannot logically have the rights to impose on the rights of another. Yes, as a person entering into voluntary exchange followed by a personal behavior is harming no one else, and requires the consent of noone else. Nuclear warhead? RPG? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sodbuster Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 Yes in 1775 when faced against a king who was thousands of miles away. The second amendment does not offer up the right to kill police officers because you disagree with a law. Thoughts like this are why people can justify in their head murdering abortion doctors. Yes 1775. Some interesting laws that have been on the books in the u.s.: Incestuous Marriage was legal It is considered an offense to open an umbrella on a street, for fear of spooking horses It is illegal to wear a fake moustache that causes laughter in church. Putting salt on a railroad track may be punishable by death. It is legal to drive the wrong way down a one-way street if you have a lantern attached to the front of your automobile. A person may not walk around on Sundays with an ice cream cone in his/her pocket. Well good to know if we are ever overseen by an imperial nation in Europe we will be all set. This quote gets so misused So a tyrant 5 miles away is less dangerous than one across the seas? These statements, especially the last, make painfully clear that you have no grasp on the concept of freedom, or history for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 As long as elections are going on, and courts exist..talk of violent uprising against police and government is stupid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 What will be interesting is to see if it changes anyting, or is it just another big government fuss over something they cannot control. I continue to be torn on the issue, preferring to side on less regulation than excessive.. I have to think some crazy !@#$er just mows down a parking lot of kids waiting for the bus, or cuts a gas pipe and lights a match at his old place of employement, or figures out how to build a explosive device and walks into a cafeteria..... I just don't know. Human's can be terrible creatures, in the minority of course, and if they are deranged, they will find a way to kill, kill, kill.... maybe guns and big clips make it easier, but it will still happen I assume. Maybe the question now for all gun enthisiats is how quickly can you sell your NYS home and move to Wyoming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
section122 Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 So a tyrant 5 miles away is less dangerous than one across the seas? These statements, especially the last, make painfully clear that you have no grasp on the concept of freedom, or history for that matter. Whoooosh A tyrant 5 miles away? Who in the world are you referring to? My point was those that don't remember history are doomed to repeat it doesn't apply in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 I don't know why all you guys have your panties in a wad. It's pretty clear that gun control laws are a very effective way to cut down on the number of people killed by a gun. Just look at Chicago. As much as we would like it to be, Chicago is not a state. Anyway, laws are never going to stop the murders, the individual deaths. I think the problems are occuring w/individual incidents where mass muder occurs. One will still be able to kill seven people a pop in NYS. With open borders, gun control is all or nothing. Obvously, state level is going to be more effective than city level. Fed level will trump it all with regard to pushing back borders. Baby steps... Baby steps... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 Cuomo will never be president after this bill. There is absolutely, positively no way that he could win a litany of swing states. Morality should not trump political aspirations. That's the problem we have now in DC. No one doing the right thing, just taking orders from big money special interest groups. But I wouldnt so sure this will cost him on the national stage. Times they are a changing and more people are fed up and disgusted with this NRA **** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 Maybe the question now for all gun enthusiasts is how quickly can you sell your NYS home and move to Wyoming? They know where the door is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 (edited) They know where the door is... Yes, it's right down their stairs at the end of their hall, and when you come knocking on it to take away their guns, they'll give you all of their bullets first. As long as elections are going on, and courts exist..talk of violent uprising against police and government is stupid Horseshit followed up with another strawman. You're absolutely stuck on stupid today aren't you? Nuclear warhead? RPG? Weapons of Mass Destruction fall into another category entirely, as they cannot be reasonably used to target individuals, and instead can only be used to kill indiscriminately, violating the rights of those individuals who have committed no transgression against them. Because these sorts of weapons cannot be used without violating the rights of others, their is no right for the individual (or governments) to own or use them. This is not true of RPG's, and I take no issue with their private ownership. And, now that I've played your silly little game, it's your turn to address the things I've covered in my original post about rights, and what guarantees them. Edited January 16, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 (edited) Do you really think that this is how they will enforce the law? Is this how they enforce any law?! Being a police officer means you serve and protect the people. Honestly I feel the need to be protected from people like you. Not gun enthusiasts but gun nuts. You are willing to kill police officers! You are willing to leave children parent less! All because their job has told them what they need to do. Police officers enforce the laws but they certainly don't make them. They also won't bring the swat team to your house because you have 8 bullets instead of 7 in your clip. Your paranoia is concerning. Stop being an idiot and using the most hyperbolic and loaded language possible. No one, and I mean not one single person, myself first and foremost, has mentioned a war on police officers. I, and some others, have simply stated that when a man with a gun comes to my door seeking to separate me from my justly owned property with threats of violence as the penalty for non-compliance with his unjust demands, then he has become the aggressor initiating violence on me in my home. At this point he is no longer a police officer, but rather simply a man seeking to do unjust harm to me, and he will be treated as such. As a rights abiding citizen, living peacefully in his home, I reserve the right to protect myself from any and all aggressors. If you wish to argue that he is simply a man doing his job, I counter that a man willfully employed in a job whose purpose is to infringe on the rights of other men has sacrificed his own rights in the process, as one who breaks a code of rights cannot logically seek protection by claiming those same rights he so easily and willfully treads on. In his actions he has chosen a fatherless life for his children. Edited January 16, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 (edited) Stop being an idiot and using the most hyperbolic and loaded language possible. No one, and I mean not one single person, myself first and foremost, has mentioned a war on police officers. When that police officer comes knocking on your door to make sure you have 7 bullets, how will you respond? TYTT: "I shot the sheriff but, I didn't shoot the deputy." LoL... Edited January 16, 2013 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 (edited) Weapons of Mass Destruction fall into another category entirely, as they cannot be reasonably used to target individuals, and instead can only be used to kill indiscriminately, violating the rights of those individuals who have committed no transgression against them. Because these sorts of weapons cannot be used without violating the rights of others, their is no right for the individual (or governments) to own or use them. This is not true of RPG's, and I take no issue with their private ownership. And, now that I've played your silly little game, it's your turn to address the things I've covered in my original post about rights, and what guarantees them. Weapons are regulated for their potential to do harm. Even if one were to accept your argument of "not to do good" nukes would pass. The 2nd amendment kook balls like you and Alex Jones are saying you need guns to protect you from the government. Well pards this aint the frontier days anymore with muscats, bows and arrows. Govts have nukes, guided missiles, nuclear submarines, helicopters, chemicals, and they are finding it particularly useful to use drones on individual targets. If the much feared "government" were to turn on its citizens theyre not coming door to door with pea shooters. Expect the full wrath of high tech weapons, wherein the use of nukes by private citizens on government installations would not be "indiscriminate". Paranoid? yeah, because thats what you are. You cant pick and choose what paranoid scenario fits your purposes. And if this "government turns on its people", theres every reason to believe WMDs & high tech weapons will be involved. Edited January 16, 2013 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 When that police officer comes knocking on your door to make sure you have 7 bullets, how will you respond? TYTT: "I shot the man at my door who came to my house seeking to steal my property with expressed threats of violence." Corrected for accuracy. Weapons are regulated for their potential to do harm. Even if one were to accept your argument of "not to do good" nukes would pass. The 2nd amendment kook balls like you and Alex Jones are saying you need guns to protect you from the government. Well pards this aint the frontier days anymore with muscats, bows and arrows. Govts have nukes, guided missiles, nuclear submarines, helicopters, chemicals, and they are finding it particularly useful to use drones on individual targets. If the much feared "government" were to turn on its citizens theyre not coming door to door with pea shooters. Expect the full wrath of high tech weapons, wherein the use of nukes by private citizens on government installations would be "responsible". Paranoid? yeah, because thats what you are. You cant pick and choose what paranoid scenario fits your purposes. And if this "government turns on its people", theres every reason to believe WMDs & high tech weapons will be involved. You have got to be the dumbest sonofabitch on the entire planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Corrected for accuracy. What kinda of idiot are you? The Bob Marley line was already corrected for accuracy. You shot the sheriff BUT, in your twisted mind, you didn't shoot THE DEPUTY. "The deputy of the law" you !@#$ing idiot! Who would have thought you and good old Bob were long lost Rastaman brothers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 What kinda of idiot are you? The Bob Marley line was already corrected for accuracy. You shot the sheriff BUT, in your twisted mind, you didn't shoot THE DEPUTY. "The deputy of the law" you !@#$ing idiot! Who would have thought you and good old Bob were long lost Rastaman brothers... Ya know, I can live with that rebuttal. Apparently I'm the kind of idiot who's been misinterpreting a Bob Marley lyric for about 20 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts