Become a Patron!
To Date which US Presidential candidate will you be voting for & why?
- Thread starter SMOKIE
- Start date
- Status
Steve-M
Member For 1 Year
Perhaps in some idealistic, "God given rights" view; even then, I'm not sure God has much sympathy for the gun owning rights of violent felons.
In a practical sense, the only rights we enjoy are those we (collectively and individually) are both willing and able to fight for.
yeah....and that is why the founders made sure we had the right to own guns....so we could fight for those rights when the goverment infringed upon them.otherwise they would have given the right to bear arms solely to the goverment,... by the very fact the people were given the right to bear arms and not solely the state ....the founders recognized the greatest threat to all our rights could very well be the Goverment itself....and therefore the people needed a protected means to fight for those rights.
UK
Green politician pulls out of deputy leadership race over child rapist father
https://metro.co.uk/2018/08/26/gree...ership-race-over-child-rapist-father-7884459/
Green politician pulls out of deputy leadership race over child rapist father
https://metro.co.uk/2018/08/26/gree...ership-race-over-child-rapist-father-7884459/
wow...the offspring of a violent sexual pervert produced a child ....who becomes transexual.....Who would have thunk it...I'm sure there's no connection there.....sooooooo that's the Green Party...nuff said.
Steve-M
Member For 1 Year
Indeed they did (and for obvious reasons). Nonetheless, that right and others get permanently stripped from people on a daily basis for various reasons (adjudicated mentally defective, convicted of a violent felony and sent to prison, etc). As such, the claim I was responding to, "rights can't be taken away", is very much false in the real world.
If you use violence to impede anothers freedom, then it seems you've made the decision to reject the principals of the Constitution...and it seems ridiculous to claim you would deserve protection from the very laws you don't extend to others....freedom isn't free from threat. it is constanly in need of protection.
Humans ignore the laws of God , or Nature, or reason all the time...it doesn't make those laws any less a reality....that is why tyrants always fall, the Nature of man is to be free..it's like trying to sweep back the ocean with a broom.
We hold these truths to be self-evident.
Last edited:
Steve-M
Member For 1 Year
I agree, and it seems you agree with my stance even if you don't want to come out and say it
Not sure about all that. Loads of people in this country are willing to vote their rights (and ours) away. Moreover, the tools available to today's tyrants make 1984 look quaint by comparison, and technology marches ever forward in that respect. That's a potent combination, and one that makes me less than optimistic about the future.
Its a little more than that. Its any felony except for white collar crimes. You can get guns rights taken away for traffic stuff like DUI and driving on suspended. Recently people have had their guns taken over bogus restraining orders from a neighbor without due process
Steve-M
Member For 1 Year
I know, I just went with examples that are beyond dispute, both in terms of that it happens, and that no one in their right minds would argue the validity of such restrictions.
I would argue that their(the criminal) rights were not taken away. They waived their individual rights by their own actions, mostly by depriving others of their rights. They deprived their victims of the right to property or life by their criminal acts. By their own acts, they waived their own rights. Their rights were not taken, they were given away.
That's a distinct difference. Rights can not be taken in the sense that you're implying. They can only be given away. The only exception is when rights are taken by force, as is the case of a victim of a criminal act or a people under a tyrannical government.
Last edited:
I have faith in life, and the human soul......how can I not ...Hilary lost.....and by all bets that was a forlorn hope.I agree, and it seems you agree with my stance even if you don't want to come out and say it
Not sure about all that. Loads of people in this country are willing to vote their rights (and ours) away. Moreover, the tools available to today's tyrants make 1984 look quaint by comparison, and technology marches ever forward in that respect. That's a potent combination, and one that makes me less than optimistic about the future.
Last edited:
Steve-M
Member For 1 Year
By their own acts, they waived their own rights. Their rights were not taken, they were given away.
Presuming they are actually guilty
What you wrote came to mind when I wrote my post. However, while criminals are certainly responsible for their fates, actual loss of rights ultimately comes down to the government / society explicitly deciding to revoke them via arrest, a trial, and being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.It's different from my other example of a person being adjudicated mentally defective, as the latter didn't necessarily have to commit any crime / hurt anybody to be judged such. But in both cases, society has made a conscious decision that they don't have the same rights as you and me.
I'm not trying to imply anything else. That's a big difference from "only slaves can be barred from arms", which is what I replied to. Of course, one might also note that if rights are given away by enough people, they are effectively taken from the rest of us (i.e. a new constitutional amendment rescinding the 2nd).
Last edited:
Steve-M
Member For 1 Year
Hillary lost, but was it an indictment of "the party" platform, or did she lose because she's such a sorry excuse for a human being that even a great many Democrats loathe her? We'll find out at midterms and 2020 I guess.
Presuming they are actually guilty
It's different from my other example of a person being adjudicated mentally defective, as the latter didn't necessarily have to commit any crime / hurt anybody to be judged such. But in both cases, society has made a conscious decision that they don't have the same rights as you and me.
I'm not trying to imply anything else.
No. There is a clear distinction. Disregarding any talk of guilt or innocence, as that is just muddy water for our purpose of discussing rights............................ By depriving others of their rights, the criminal forfeits his own. Those rights were not taken. They were forfeit. Just like in States with the death penalty. If they take one person's right to life, they forfeit their own right to life.
Your other example of a person being adjudicated as mentally defective is an example of a tyrannical government. At the very least, it is the beginnings of a tyrannical government. Those people are being deprived of their rights, not based on any action they have committed, but on the basis that they MAY commit an act. The government can(and does) become very arbitrary in what they consider "defective". It is already being posited by many that "right wing" views are "defective" as an example. This arbitrary labelling of "defectives" has already resulted in US Veterans that have committed no crimes but have been deemed "defective" because they may forget to pay their bills(deemed incompetent to handle their own finances) due to issues of memory are prevented from buying or owning firearms. This is tyrannical. So, while the government does take that right, it is a tyrannical government that does it by force and threat of force just as the criminal takes the right of owning property or life by force or threat of force. In such cases, the criminal and the government are one and the same.
Steve-M
Member For 1 Year
Indeed, that's the logical standpoint. The practical considerations are more nuanced. In the real world, the criminal has to be brought to justice first, otherwise he forfeits nothing. While you feel that the problem of a "false" guilty verdict muddies the water, it proves my point further: rights are lost when and only when society deems it. And to muddy things a little more, as Ralph K. noted earlier, it's not just violent crimes where people forfeit rights. If I start manufacturing large quantities of illicit drugs in my home for personal use, I have little doubt that my right to bear arms will be infringed on a permanent basis, irrespective of whether I caused anyone else harm.
I agree, that power can lead to a very slippery slope. Unfortunately, I've been friends with a few, so I know why it is necessary.
Both.
The Party platform invites corruption and sorry excuses for humans. It's how Hitlery was born as a Candidate.
One need look at videos or posts which are currently determined as sensitive material or censored from view or banned from social media under the first amendment to determine the line intended by the state as the cutoff point for the adjudication of the revocation of ones 2nd amendment rights and seizure of your weapons without due process - This might merely be watching or sharing any such post or video which I have shared above and it is a truly disturbing concept.
We may literally be at a point where merely watching or sharing an Alex Jones video may justify in the mind of a judge that very revocation or confiscation and that is completely unacceptable.
We may literally be at a point where merely watching or sharing an Alex Jones video may justify in the mind of a judge that very revocation or confiscation and that is completely unacceptable.
People are often resigned to making things seem more difficult than they are. Those are two different subjects. We are supposed to strive for accuracy in determining guilt or innocence so as not to wrongly take the rights of an innocent person. While it happens, it was wrong when it happened. But that's a discussion for the way we make those decisions. Those innocent people that lost their rights did so because they were wrongly accused doing something to forfeit them. They were not taken. They were assumed to have been forfeit. Wrongly.
Your drug example would also fall in the category of tyrannical government. Just because our government does something does not make it right. Laws can be, and often are, tyrannical.
And that right there is the problem. You're fine with it. You're not the one that looses your rights arbitrarily. Yet.
Jacksonville Shooter Was Member of Anti-Trump ‘Resistance’ – Referred to Trump Supporters as “Trumptards” – Murdered 3 People
Florida Gaming Tournament Killer’s Disturbing Anti-Trump Rants Targeted Conservatives
Thought this story vanished too quickly.
Florida Gaming Tournament Killer’s Disturbing Anti-Trump Rants Targeted Conservatives
Thought this story vanished too quickly.
Last edited:
Steve-M
Member For 1 Year
More difficult indeed
As if there is a practical difference between "assumed to have been forfeit. wrongly." and "taken". All while the actual criminal forfeits nothing. Which falls nicely into my point that you agreed with: government can and does take away our rights with force.
Let me paint for you a picture of one individual I've seen working at a hospital. Guy comes in, says he has a million dollar painting in his hands, and some guys are looking to kill him for it. He then proceeds to lock himself in an empty office and stab himself repeatedly with a pen. He harmed no one else. Should this individual be adjudicated mentally defective and have his 2A (among other) rights revoked, or you believe this individual is fully prepared for the responsibility that comes with firearm ownership?
It was indictment of the whole DNC of course....a DNC that conspired to steal the nomination...a DNC that not just lost the Whitehouse, but under Obama they lost the House, the Senate, alot of govenorships and a helluva alot of the statehouses...and the great part is the dumbfucks are steering their Titanic on the same course....cool.
Twitter: Threatening to Murder Dana Loesch’s Kids Isn’t a Violation of Terms
https://www.redstate.com/ameliahami...-dana-loeschs-kids-isnt-a-violation-of-terms/
https://www.redstate.com/ameliahami...-dana-loeschs-kids-isnt-a-violation-of-terms/
More difficult indeed
And as if anomalies in the justice system are an excuse to redefine the intent of felons losing their rights.
When I shoot my bow and one arrow flies different than the rest because the vanes are maladjusted, I don't adjust my sights for that arrow. I throw it out and discount it's relevance.
Tyrannical government can try and take away our rights. And does on small individual basis. But that is only if we give up our rights. The government is too small to try it on a large scale.
Ah. I'm not in the business of predicting the future nor adjusting my sights due to single faulty arrow.
fired ....in Italy for sexual misconduct....isn't that like getting fired in Italy for eating Pasta.
Last edited:
I think we have to face the fact that these people want to eradicate anyone who doesn't obey.
Steve-M
Member For 1 Year
If anything, they're taking a more direct course towards the iceberg with more recent crap like Abolish ICE.
yeah, that's been the refrain of every despot since..forever.
No...We have to get them to face the fact that this bullshit is unacceptable. Twitter, Facebook and Google were all born out of DARPA funded by US taxpayers and in my opinion we are the rightful owners...Give them an ultimatum - Either they straighten up and guarantee the first amendment and provide equal justice for all or we will confiscate their company and use the profits to pay down the national debt.
Steve-M
Member For 1 Year
And as if anomalies in the justice system are an excuse to redefine the intent of felons losing their rights.
I thought they forfeited their rights, vs losing them? Maybe if they look real hard, they can find them again?
In any case, I'm not redefining anything, just looking from a different perspective. If you don't agree, so be it. It makes little difference to me whether you believe violent criminals forfeit their rights vs having them taken by society as punishment for their crime. The net result is the same.They just need more useful idiots and people looking for handouts. Unfortunately, people that fall into those groups don't seem to be in short supply.
You think there are only one or two people that are deeply mentally ill in this country?
I think the elites realized that to subdue America, they couldn't do it by goverment edicts or State violence..they had to sell us our chains..I agree I think the goverment funded and created these enities,however I believe the goverment or the deep state still owns or controls them...by hiding them behind a corporate logo it allows the elite to violate the Consittution and free themselves from legal restrictions. none of these companies have to turn a profit, none of their CEOs are owners, they are puppets....they are I believe funded and supported by the deep state...
No doubt the CIA owns and runs them all. Lets takes away the revenue streams that supports the deep state, declare them public utilities, confiscate them openly and pay down our debt with the revenue.
it is why the CIA started and controls the International drug trade...the drug trade is a larger Industry than the International Oil Industry...the CIA's control of the Drug trade ensures them a near unlimited supply of money....every hear of Catherine Fitts.
Steve-M
Member For 1 Year
Ehh, despots tend to just send the mentally ill to special "camps" along with the other undesirables and be done with it. Conversely, I'm not aware of too many gun rights organizations that support that right for people professionally diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, people with the mental capacity of a 5 year old, etc. If you and Time do, more power to you I guess.
the idea that gun control laws have anything to do with public saftey is ludicrous...I am supposed to believe my goverment wants to control and infringe upon my Consitutional rights on the canard that a handfull of mentally ill people may go shoot up a School and yet.....after countelses examples of illegal aliens coming unchecked and unfettered across the border who daily murder,maim, rape and butcher American citizens .....the political class of this country puts more control and attention on what fucking lightbulb I use than they do on the filth that slinks across the border...and you want me to believe this political class is using the gun grabs to protect me., the same goverment that operate a War economy and kills American service men and innocents around the world for profit .....lol....go throughout the world or it's history control of the people to bear arms was always done to control the masses from uprsiings,
They all said gun control was for the public good...and how'd it work out for the public....so what exactlly makes my political leaders immune from tyranny.
Hitler
Stalin
Mao
Castro..
.....in the long hiistory of this planet there has never seen a society that was destroyed or seriously harmed by the mentally ill running amok and murdering people...however time and time again we have seen genocidal bloodbaths, or enslaved populations occur because people were disarmed.
Last edited:
I think I don't know the guy and won't get into arbitrary analysis. I don't think the Constitution gives me nor you the right to decide who is fit and who is not fit. I think everyone that has not forfeited their rights by their own actions, deserves to keep their rights. I think I'm just a man and not an all knowing God. I think I should act like a man and know my limitations to not remove another man's rights arbitrarily based on me trying to read his mind and predict the future. I think Darwin would greatly reduce the number of mentally ill, if given the chance and not relying on government to solve such issues(which it can't).
And to top it off, I think many "conservatives" or people on the "right" are just fine with subjugating others rights as long as it's in line with their own personal views despite claims to the contrary. Look to the "religious right" for confirmation, as an example.
Last edited:
Whistleblower Exposes Key Player in FBI Russia Probe: “It was all a Set-up”
Former DOD employee uncovered a long history of questionable behavior by FBI informant Key player in Russia probe appears to have significant ties to Russian government
https://saraacarter.com/whistleblower-exposes-key-player-in-fbi-russia-probe-it-was-all-a-set-up/
Former DOD employee uncovered a long history of questionable behavior by FBI informant Key player in Russia probe appears to have significant ties to Russian government
https://saraacarter.com/whistleblower-exposes-key-player-in-fbi-russia-probe-it-was-all-a-set-up/
Steve-M
Member For 1 Year
It's possible to be suspicious of the motivations our public servants in their pushes towards gun control, while accepting that certain individuals shouldn't have the right to bear arms. But again, if you feel we shouldn't infringe on the rights of people adjudicated mentally defective, regardless of how severe their mental illness may be, there's probably not much I can say to change your mind.
You an me? Perhaps not. A judge and a panel of licensed psychiatrists? That's another story. Various state laws denying the right to bear arms for the mentally ill haven't been struck down thus far.
Last edited:
As Time has pointed out....what constitutes.."deranged" or "dangerous" is and has been a political football.....today right now we have a huge number of people, and the Leaders of the largest political party in America who are insane...... who are saying anyone who isn't a Democrat is a Nazi..a White Nationalist, they should be hounded harrassed beaten in the streets they should be silenced and censored...be suspicous? are you fucking serious...these motherfuckers would put people like me in a camp in a heartbeat, and you want me to hand my guns over to them.....LOL...
Steve-M
Member For 1 Year
So you believe it's impossible for a panel of lawmakers, (whether they're Democrats, Trump brand Republicans, whoever you prefer) to come up (with the help from professional psychiatrists) with an objective standard of "deranged" and "dangerous" that doesn't simply become an excuse to disarm one's political rivals? Now who is being pessimistic?
An impartial Judge? An impartial shrink?
You place allot of faith in men/women.
Do I need to cite recent decisions in say,,,,,,,,,,,,,the 9th circuit or the fact of the poliiticized Supreme Court?
As you point out, there are allot of people willing to vote away their rights. There are also allot of people willing to subvert peoples rights by hook and crook. You can trust a Court system if you want but you've already pointed out the failings of the system.
No, I prefer hard and fast rules like those defined in the Constitution. And even those are being stretched to the point of breaking now. BY COURTS. And you're fully on board with it.
Steve-M
Member For 1 Year
Not particularly, but unless God sends a few angels down to rule over us, judges and licensed psychiatrists are all we've got.You place allot of faith in men/women.
Hard and fast rules tend to have their own drawbacks, i.e. no flexibility to deal with the wide variety of situations the real world presents on a case by case basis. Hefty mandatory minimum sentences for relatively minor drug offenses being an example.
- Status