Obama's call to repeal "Due Process"

[SkyDekker 1,395]

Quote

If you don't like it, you don't have to be here

That's right, I don't.

[turtlespeed 212]

SkyDekker

Quote

If you don't like it, you don't have to be here

That's right, I don't.

See, we can agree.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kawisixer01 0]

no, you don't have a right to healthcare. I'd explain why, but I think Sen Paul does a much better job. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUXwDMqjC-A

[SkyDekker 1,395]

Quote

no, you don't have a right to healthcare.

That's right. Healthcare is a mere privilege. Now a gun, a gun is something everybody needs a right to. That is important!

[Bolas 5]

SkyDekker

Quote

no, you don't have a right to healthcare.

That's right. Healthcare is a mere privilege. Now a gun, a gun is something everybody needs a right to. That is important!

Well, if you're going by the gun definition of a right, people already have the right to healthcare as it's not illegal and health insurance can be purchased.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[turtlespeed 212]

Bolas

***

Quote

no, you don't have a right to healthcare.

That's right. Healthcare is a mere privilege. Now a gun, a gun is something everybody needs a right to. That is important!

Well, if you're going by the gun definition of a right, people already have the right to healthcare as it's not illegal and health insurance can be purchased.

Because it the second amendment were treated like Obama care, you'd have to at least buy some guns and ammo, or be penalized by a less than honest tax.

But if your guns aren't what Obama wanted, you get lied to, when he would say if you like your gun, keep your gun, if you like your ammo, keep your ammo.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kawisixer01 0]

SkyDekker

Quote

no, you don't have a right to healthcare.

That's right. Healthcare is a mere privilege. Now a gun, a gun is something everybody needs a right to. That is important!

It's a pretty simple concept, freedom and rights. I don't care if it's guns or tomatoes, my purchasing something in a free market doesn't force anyone to do anything for me or to give me their goods and it doesn't infringe on anyone's rights. Forcing someone to provide me their services, along with their goods is an infringement on THEIR rights and freedoms.

[JerryBaumchen 1,333]

Hi turtle,

Quote

Because it the second amendment were treated like Obama care

They are apples & oranges; neither is like the other.

So why do you keep posting this type of horsepuckey. It does nothing to further the discussion(s)?

Jerry Baumchen

[turtlespeed 212]

JerryBaumchen

Hi turtle,

Quote

Because it the second amendment were treated like Obama care

They are apples & oranges; neither is like the other.

So why do you keep posting this type of horsepuckey. It does nothing to further the discussion(s)?

Jerry Baumchen

I was following suit. Didn't want to break trump yet.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[brenthutch 428]

SkyDekker

Quote

no, you don't have a right to healthcare.

That's right. Healthcare is a mere privilege. Now a gun, a gun is something everybody needs a right to. That is important!

What about food? Is that a right? What about housing? What about education? What about transportation, Internet access and weed?

[SkyDekker 1,395]

Quote

What about food? Is that a right? What about housing? What about education?

Yes, I believe those to be a pretty basic human right. I believe those are more important than a gun.

Quote

What about transportation, Internet access and weed?

Nope.

[brenthutch 428]

I think all of them are rights. Want a gun...buy a gun. Want some healthcare......buy yourself some healthcare. Hungry? Buy some food!

[billvon 2,879]

>I think all of them are rights. Want a gun...buy a gun. Want some
>healthcare......buy yourself some healthcare.

Cool, so all of them are rights, and we can stop with the "but guns are in the Constitution and so are REALLY a right."

[Bolas 5]

billvon

>I think all of them are rights. Want a gun...buy a gun. Want some
>healthcare......buy yourself some healthcare.

Cool, so all of them are rights, and we can stop with the "but guns are specifically in the Constitution and so are REALLY a constitutional right."

FIFY

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[rehmwa 2]

billvon

>I think all of them are rights. Want a gun...buy a gun. Want some
>healthcare......buy yourself some healthcare.

Cool, so all of them are rights, and we can stop with the "but guns are in the Constitution and so are REALLY a right."

I hate to continue your divert to guns, but your point is really well made.

Most pro-gun arguments, IMHO, are simply covered under the right to purchase and own what we like without government interference (if we aren't felons and have proved by our actions that we can't have nice things). NOT the 2nd at all.

The 2nd amendment (specifically in the constitution) is more specifically about the ability to defend ourselves from a corrupt government and not just 'guns guns guns'. This goes a lot further and into areas a lot more broad than just unrestricted (for non-felons) private gun ownership. Though it should include it.

The 2 things are very different with very different goals and justifications - though both should be taken very seriously.

examples:
- 1: "I have the right to protect myself as I see fit from criminals"--- TRUE
- 2: "The 2nd amendment says I have the right to protect myself as I see fit from criminals"--- FALSE
- 3: "The 2nd amendment says I have the right to be able to protect myself and society from a government gone bad - including owning weapons as I see fit"--- TRUE
- 4: "I have the right to own stuff and I'm not convicted of actions that would restrict that right. And I don't have to justify why I want or choose to own certain things." TRUE
- 5: "I can go hunting" TRUE
- 6: "2nd amendment means I can go hunting" FALSE

But I hate it when someone talks about the personal side (#1 and #4 and #5) (ownership and use of stuff, and individual self protection) and then claims it's a 2nd amendment discussion - those two things aren't #3 - other than protection from a bad government. It dilutes the discussion dramatically and idiots on both sides try to talk about hunting or the like. There are areas that overlap, of course, in that the 2nd amendment should actively direct opposition to anything that could lead to confiscation or abuse of the private ownership area, but that's about it to me.

It's why I'd oppose registration and tracking of specific firearms, but not training and licensing and background checks (to ensure one is not a felon) of individuals to be able to purchase whatever they like.

One thing that's very clear is that ALL the original rights (not FDRs welfare rights that are actually abuse of rights) are all about the same thing - listing those things that are useful to keep a government from going bad, or opposing it if goes bad anyway. The listed rights are about the gov relation with the citizens and the gov needs to work to protect the people from itself. Unlisted rights are more about citizens not being bullies to other citizens.....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[wolfriverjoe 1,495]

rehmwa

...The 2nd amendment (specifically in the constitution) is more specifically about the ability to defend ourselves from a corrupt government and not just 'guns guns guns'. This goes a lot further and into areas a lot more broad than just unrestricted (for non-felons) private gun ownership. Though it should include it.

The 2 things are very different with very different goals and justifications - though both should be taken very seriously.

examples:
- 1: "I have the right to protect myself as I see fit from criminals"--- TRUE
- 2: "The 2nd amendment says I have the right to protect myself as I see fit from criminals"--- FALSE
- 3: "The 2nd amendment says I have the right to be able to protect myself and society from a government gone bad - including owning weapons as I see fit"--- TRUE
- 4: "I have the right to own stuff and I'm not convicted of actions that would restrict that right. And I don't have to justify why I want or choose to own certain things." TRUE
- 5: "I can go hunting" TRUE
- 6: "2nd amendment means I can go hunting" FALSE

But I hate it when someone talks about the personal side (#1 and #4 and #5) (ownership and use of stuff, and individual self protection) and then claims it's a 2nd amendment discussion - those two things aren't #3 - other than protection from a bad government. It dilutes the discussion dramatically and idiots on both sides try to talk about hunting or the like. There are areas that overlap, of course, in that the 2nd amendment should actively direct opposition to anything that could lead to confiscation or abuse of the private ownership area, but that's about it to me.

It's why I'd oppose registration and tracking of specific firearms, but not training and licensing and background checks (to ensure one is not a felon) of individuals to be able to purchase whatever they like.

One thing that's very clear is that ALL the original rights (not FDRs welfare rights that are actually abuse of rights) are all about the same thing - listing those things that are useful to keep a government from going bad, or opposing it if goes bad anyway. The listed rights are about the gov relation with the citizens and the gov needs to work to protect the people from itself. Unlisted rights are more about citizens not being bullies to other citizens.....

Not exactly.

The first part of the 2nd A says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.."

So the purpose of the 2nd is to have available a "well regulated militia."
Which a lot of anti-gun folks have taken to mean the National Guard (state organized and funded militia).

But, if you read the stuff associated with the writing of the Constitution, and specifically the BOR, you will find that they didn't mean a "state milita." They meant an "unorganized milita." Which was defined as all able bodied adult males. (women didn't have any rights back then, personally I'd include them today). And "well regulated" meant "well armed", not burdened with a lot of rules.

Remember, one of the things the founding fathers feared was a standing army. In those days, the army (you know, the "state militia") was used far, far more often to suppress and oppress the civilian population than it was to invade a foreign country, or defend against foreign invasion.

That "local militia" would defend against foreign invasion (something the Japanese were very aware of in WW2), protect the community during situations where the local law enforcement was unable to (natural disasters or large groups of bad guys), and be able to defend against government over reach.

The second part of the sentence "..the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Covers stuff like hunting, self defense and all that.

Funny how the "people" in the other nine amendments (the word "people" or "person" isn't in all of them, but it's implied) mean just that - individual people. But some folks choose to not accept that in the case of the 2nd.
Which makes no sense. Because one of the original versions of the 2nd is longer, and includes this:

Quote

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State...

"Composed of the body of the people."

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[cvfd1399 0]

wolfriverjoe

***


...The 2nd amendment (specifically in the constitution) is more specifically about the ability to defend ourselves from a corrupt government and not just 'guns guns guns'. This goes a lot further and into areas a lot more broad than just unrestricted (for non-felons) private gun ownership. Though it should include it.

The 2 things are very different with very different goals and justifications - though both should be taken very seriously.

examples:
- 1: "I have the right to protect myself as I see fit from criminals"--- TRUE
- 2: "The 2nd amendment says I have the right to protect myself as I see fit from criminals"--- FALSE
- 3: "The 2nd amendment says I have the right to be able to protect myself and society from a government gone bad - including owning weapons as I see fit"--- TRUE
- 4: "I have the right to own stuff and I'm not convicted of actions that would restrict that right. And I don't have to justify why I want or choose to own certain things." TRUE
- 5: "I can go hunting" TRUE
- 6: "2nd amendment means I can go hunting" FALSE

But I hate it when someone talks about the personal side (#1 and #4 and #5) (ownership and use of stuff, and individual self protection) and then claims it's a 2nd amendment discussion - those two things aren't #3 - other than protection from a bad government. It dilutes the discussion dramatically and idiots on both sides try to talk about hunting or the like. There are areas that overlap, of course, in that the 2nd amendment should actively direct opposition to anything that could lead to confiscation or abuse of the private ownership area, but that's about it to me.

It's why I'd oppose registration and tracking of specific firearms, but not training and licensing and background checks (to ensure one is not a felon) of individuals to be able to purchase whatever they like.

One thing that's very clear is that ALL the original rights (not FDRs welfare rights that are actually abuse of rights) are all about the same thing - listing those things that are useful to keep a government from going bad, or opposing it if goes bad anyway. The listed rights are about the gov relation with the citizens and the gov needs to work to protect the people from itself. Unlisted rights are more about citizens not being bullies to other citizens.....

Not exactly.

The first part of the 2nd A says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.."

So the purpose of the 2nd is to have available a "well regulated militia."
Which a lot of anti-gun folks have taken to mean the National Guard (state organized and funded militia).

But, if you read the stuff associated with the writing of the Constitution, and specifically the BOR, you will find that they didn't mean a "state milita." They meant an "unorganized milita." Which was defined as all able bodied adult males. (women didn't have any rights back then, personally I'd include them today). And "well regulated" meant "well armed", not burdened with a lot of rules.

Remember, one of the things the founding fathers feared was a standing army. In those days, the army (you know, the "state militia") was used far, far more often to suppress and oppress the civilian population than it was to invade a foreign country, or defend against foreign invasion.

That "local militia" would defend against foreign invasion (something the Japanese were very aware of in WW2), protect the community during situations where the local law enforcement was unable to (natural disasters or large groups of bad guys), and be able to defend against government over reach.

The second part of the sentence "..the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Covers stuff like hunting, self defense and all that.

Funny how the "people" in the other nine amendments (the word "people" or "person" isn't in all of them, but it's implied) mean just that - individual people. But some folks choose to not accept that in the case of the 2nd.
Which makes no sense. Because one of the original versions of the 2nd is longer, and includes this:

Quote

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State...

"Composed of the body of the people."
+1 Well proved

[kawisixer01 0]

The other things that folks fail to realize is that the amendments don;t spell out those rights granted to you by the government to exercise. Quite the opposite. It lists those rights which one is naturally born with (endowed by their creator), and that the government SHOULD NOT INFRINGE. The second amendment doesn't "allow" someone to purchase or own a firearm, it means that the government shall not infringe upon that right.
What folks seem to get wrong most often is the comprehension of the framing documents. First by the language used, as at the time of the writings the contexts that words were used in was different. (ever read an old english book or even an original Shakespeare script?) The other commonly misunderstood thing being that the the framing documents for the country put all the power in the people's court. There are ways for the citizens to redress nearly every aspect of the government and to throw it out if necessary. Of course the government has done a great job in it's government run education system of glazing over these facts and making sure that the general public is not educated in intricacies of the documents that created the government.

[jgoose71 0]

SkyDekker

Quote

What about food? Is that a right? What about housing? What about education?

Yes, I believe those to be a pretty basic human right. I believe those are more important than a gun.

***What about transportation, Internet access and weed?

Nope.

I think I get where you are going here and let me explain the difference in our opinions....

I believe rights are there to allow you to take care of yourself.

You seem to believe that everyone has the right to be taken care of.

In my belief, I may not always have everything I need, but I only have myself to blame if I don't have it. If I have all of my afforded rights I should have the freedoms to find a way to go get it.

In your belief, you have everything provided for you. In doing so however, you will have to do things that your provider wants you to do so that way he can provide. This may mean not necessarily having all the freedoms of me, but you know where your next meal comes from.

So how does it feel to be a pet to the government?

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[SkyDekker 1,395]

Quote

In your belief, you have everything provided for you.

Not at all. I do believe that as a society we have a responsibility to provide a minimum of care to those in society. That means ensuring people have a basic level of preventative and emergency health care.

It means that affordable housing is available to those who need it. It means welfare is available to those who need it.

Those who do not need it, or who can afford more are free to do so. Nobody is a pet of the government. Though improvements can always be made.

I find it odd that when it comes to gun ownership, most people find it "acceptable" that innocent people die from time to time. It is the price to be paid for the right.

Yet when it comes to things like welfare, healthcare, food stamps etc. one person abusing it is grounds for abolishing it.

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

Yet when it comes to things like welfare, healthcare, food stamps etc. one person abusing it is grounds for abolishing it.

Who stated this?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,395]

rushmc

***

Yet when it comes to things like welfare, healthcare, food stamps etc. one person abusing it is grounds for abolishing it.

Who stated this?

You.

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

******

Yet when it comes to things like welfare, healthcare, food stamps etc. one person abusing it is grounds for abolishing it.

Who stated this?

You.

you will not find that post to back that up anywhere
I do not believe that and I have not stated that

You leaned to lie like Hillary Clinton it seems

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jgoose71 0]

SkyDekker

Quote

In your belief, you have everything provided for you.

Not at all. I do believe that as a society we have a responsibility to provide a minimum of care to those in society. That means ensuring people have a basic level of preventative and emergency health care.

It means that affordable housing is available to those who need it. It means welfare is available to those who need it.

Those who do not need it, or who can afford more are free to do so. Nobody is a pet of the government. Though improvements can always be made.

I find it odd that when it comes to gun ownership, most people find it "acceptable" that innocent people die from time to time. It is the price to be paid for the right.

Yet when it comes to things like welfare, healthcare, food stamps etc. one person abusing it is grounds for abolishing it.

I think you and I can agree that some level of a safety net in a modern society is a reasonable thing. I think that the amount of a safety net we would disagree on. I know this has a lot to do with our philosophies on life. I strongly believe a lot more in self reliance.

This carries over to the gun debate. A lot of people now a days would much rather outsource their safety to the government. If a bad guy comes, call the police, hide in the closet, and hope he doesn't find you until the police arrive.

Then their are those that believe that themselves, not the police, are the first line of defense when bad things happen. They have to keep their family safe until police arrive.

When you look at crimes committed with guns, the U.S. averages about 32,000 a year. When you look at crimes stopped with guns, depending on the study you look at you get numbers between 700,000 to 4.5 million a year. This is hard to verify because the numbers are taken from a sampling and not very many people report an "almost crime."

However, a good number of the amount of women deter rapist with a gun is around 200,000 a year.

Keep in mind, while in the U.S. there are approximately 88 guns for every 100 people right now, they also say that only about 38% of the households have guns in them.

I point out this last statistic because it directly relates to why people want to ban guns. Most of America doesn't actually own a gun, so they don't see the utility of it. It's that thing that bad guys have to do bad things, ban it.

Most families do own a car, they see the utility of it, so they don't complain about the carnage on the streets.

That, and some also don't mind cowering in a corner while their family gets killed one by one by a lunatic while they wait for police to arrive.....

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

******

Yet when it comes to things like welfare, healthcare, food stamps etc. one person abusing it is grounds for abolishing it.

Who stated this?

You.

One of my first posts here on the subject of a safety net that I support

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2922788;search_string=safety%20net;#2922788

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln