There are a couple of screenshots with several 'claims'.
Which of them are you referring to?
Forgot about replying to one of my posts with this already:First, the bolded: A nice bit of irony, as I never mentioned anything that would disagree with your statement. I'm pointing out how using "God given right" is a foolish notion that only will allow for believers to do whatever they want and absolve themselves from the consequences. I'm not even sure why you quoted me and responded in the first place. Sticking too the facts, huh, if only >4 billion + people on our planet would do the same, it would be more than much appreciated. If history has shown us anything, it's that people can do terrible things in the name of a God, so I'm not inclined to allow for someone to force their "God given rights" on anyone.
Second, aside from that, you're just explaining how society works, so thanks? I'm not sure why, but good on ya.
I don't know why you keep bringing the discussion back around to God. I'm an agnostic who leans towards atheist and I don't think I've been using the term "God given rights." Yet you keep implying I am rationalizing my argument by using God as a justification. This is not true and you need to stop, even if you think it scores you points because obviously you think anyone who believes in god is an idiot.Maybe God will smite those who violate those God given rights, lol. How dare someone not believe!
I never even implied something so ridiculous.Voting is one day, hunting is more than one day.
Was that sarcasm or are you really saying anyone from anywhere at anytime should be able to purchase any gun they choose for “hunting”?
What do you think the idiot currently in the White House would do if he had both a disarmed population and sufficient loyalty of the military? I shudder to think.
I never even implied something so ridiculous.
I did make a joke about the whole voter ID issue. It's basically a non-issue because voter fraud doesn't exist to the level of any real concern. But let me explain the joke to you:
The right ridiculously insists we need to pass voter ID laws to prevent non-citizens from voting. Obviously this is because they think it will prevent low income and minority voters, who traditionally vote democrat, from voting to their benefit.
While the left ridiculously insists that asking a voter to show a $20 state issued ID to vote is an undue burden that would break democracy because we can't expect low income and minority voters to prove who they are before exercising one of the most powerful and important rights of our democracy.
All while the left insist we mandate burdensome taxes, fees, licencing, background checks, registration and even psychiatric evaluations before a person be allowed to exercise their 2A rights. Which I find a bit hypocritical of the left. Not that the right isn't equally or even more hypocritical when it suits their needs.
Which is why I advocate the correct answer is usually somewhere in the middle of what the two sides want. And, why I made the joke.
I would disagree with you. I believe the vast majority of our troops and sworn law-enforcement are more loyal to the U.S. Constitution they swore to defend than to Trump. But what many of those folks fear (rationally or otherwise) is that the left and the democrats present a greater danger of limiting and restricting their rights than Trump does. They don't want to be rendered unable to back up their vote with force because they understand that would make their vote worthless.What if I told you the ones armed are sympathetic to the dotard? Military, law enforcement, and civilian?
Pentagon Concerned Russia Cultivating Sympathy Among US Troops
Defense officials say they are ‘actively working to expose and counter Russian disinformation’ as Moscow tries to ‘sow doubt and confusion’www.voanews.com
Yes and no.do you ever feel like you arent talking to anyone?
I would disagree with you. I believe the vast majority of our troops and sworn law-enforcement are more loyal to the U.S. Constitution they swore to defend than to Trump. But what many of those folks fear (rationally or otherwise) is that the left and the democrats present a greater danger of limiting and restricting their rights than Trump does. They don't want to be rendered unable to back up their vote with force because they understand that would make their vote worthless.
But, the fact that we have impeachment proceedings in progress tell me democracy and the rule of law are still very much alive. If anything, the left's continued harping on gun control and threats like those made by Beto O'Rouke are working wonders to solidify many Republicans and Trump's supporters to win him another four years.
We better hope the impeachment works, because the Dems winning the election is far from a sure thing.
So how did a foreigner get a hunting license that allowed him to buy a gun.
I thought foreigners didn’t have the same constitutional rights? What benefit is there to allowing foreigners hunting rights? We now know the risk.
Double woosh. I said it isn't about whether or not God is real and yet you go right back to saying it is without addressing the point of attributing the right to a deity: it was to specifically deny itself or anyone else the power to change that right while, at the same time, legally defining/enshrining it. Because the Constitution is where lawmakers get their powers (including the power to change it) and it expressly states that neither they nor it has that power, it accomplishes that whether or not God is real.This, of course, only means something to people who think the constitution was set forth by God. You can get hung up on it all day long, but it's going in the direction of believers will believe whatever they want to, facts be damned. Kinda like how the Bible was written by men, but it's men who were under the influence of God and he wrote through them.
"God isn't real" is just playing dumb, that one made me lol...so thanks for that. Can't prove a negative? That means you're dumb!! neener neener neener!
Are you implying that he didn't need ID to get his hunting license? I wouldn't know but I expect he would. If you know otherwise, LMK.How would presenting an ID to get a hunting license produce an undue burden on hunters?
Because of they have the same nationality/skin color?I'd like to know why the fuck they haven't been expelled and all arms sales to the KSA suspended.
Because everyone is innocent until proven guilty and there is no justification for blocking it for every Saudi in training? Yeah, I'd say it was probably something like that.Still trying to figure out why we allowed a Saudi Major to fly in and meet with detained trainees (and perhaps coach their stories?) before police and FBI have finished the investigation.
FBI: Saudi Arabian official meets with Saudi students restricted to NAS Pensacola base
The FBI has confirmed on MondaySaudi Arabia Defense Attaché Major General Fawaz Al Fawaz met with the Saudi students who remain restricted to the NAS Pensacola base by their Saudi commanding officer. This comes after Mohammed Alshamrani,a second lieutenant in the Royal Saudi Air Force and a...weartv.com
A foreigner has constitutional rights.Exactly. A foreigner has no constitutional rights... but it isn't that much different than an American going on an African trophy hunt after paying for the license, is it? Kinda need access to a gun for that.
Not saying he's entitled to it. I'm just saying it would be a double-standard to expect to be able to hunt in other countries and not allow a foreigner to hunt here. I'm also saying it wasn't a gun show purchase without a license or whatever the insinuation was with gun shows above.
Double woosh. I said it isn't about whether or not God is real and yet you go right back to saying it is without addressing the point of attributing the right to a deity: it was to specifically deny itself or anyone else the power to change that right while, at the same time, legally defining/enshrining it. Because the Constitution is where lawmakers get their powers (including the power to change it) and it expressly states that neither they nor it has that power, it accomplishes that whether or not God is real.
The Constitution itself is what gives lawmakers the power to amend/change the Constitution but it denies them and itself that specific power in no uncertain terms. That part is intended to be immutable and unchangeable, thus they attribute it to a deity and expressly forbid itself or anyone empowered by it the right to change that part.
Are you implying that he didn't need ID to get his hunting license? I wouldn't know but I expect he would. If you know otherwise, LMK.
Because of they have the same nationality/skin color?
I didn't think this kind of open racism was a thing around here.
Because everyone is innocent until proven guilty and there is no justification for blocking it for every Saudi in training? Yeah, I'd say it was probably something like that.
For your argument to hold any water being a conservative and a gun owner would have to = willing to go to war to overthrow the government of the country.The majority of the military is conservative. An even bigger majority of law enforcement is conservative. Many of these individuals still support the dotard. It's obvious the threat is with conservatives who have the guns, so ironically this argumentation is faulty as they are their worst enemy. He doesn't even have to do this in your hypothetical:
Venezuela's Maduro to provide guns to 400,000 loyalists amid peaking tension
Announcement came as opposition gears up for what they pledge will be the largest rally yet.www.foxnews.com
For your argument to hold any water being a conservative and a gun owner would have to = willing to go to war to overthrow the government of the country.
This simply isn't true, and if you insist is it then you have no rational place in this discussion. Sorry.
The U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from legally infringing on the right of the people to keep and bare arms. It does not allow for the government to legally suspend democracy and become a dictatorship or other form of tyrannical government. So, how would our current military and law enforcement remaining loyal to the Constitution over a president trying to suspend democracy in any way a rebut my argument that *IF* they ever did it would be best to at least have an armed citizenry to oppose them???What do you think the idiot currently in the White House would do if he had both a disarmed population and sufficient loyalty of the military? I shudder to think.
You are the one arguing there's a remote possibility that the military and law enforcement are captured by an authoritarian government, and that the civilians holding guns would matter. My argument is this is full of irony. The civilians armed are generally conservative, and both law enforcement and the military have an affinity towards conservatives. Your rebuttal was that the military and law enforcement will remain loyal to the Constitution which really just rebuts your previous statement above.
So, how would our current military and law enforcement remaining loyal to the Constitution over a president trying to suspend democracy in any way a rebut
my argument that *IF* they did it would be best to at least have an armed citizenry to oppose them???
Forgot about replying to one of my posts with this already:
I don't know why you keep bringing the discussion back around to God. I'm an agnostic who leans towards atheist and I don't think I've been using the term "God given rights." Yet you keep implying I am rationalizing my argument by using God as a justification. This is not true and you need to stop, even if you think it scores you points because obviously you think anyone who believes in god is an idiot.
I have used the term "natural rights" to convey the idea that U.S. Constitution did not grant the right of the people to keep and bare arms. Instead, it prohibited that right from being infringed on because the authors considered that right to be inalienable, or natural, or (in their words, not mine) God given.
Ultimately, though, the ability to control the behavior of an individual via laws, granted rights or whatever, rests in the ability to use violence or the threat of violence to control that individuals behavior. If we had no cops and no military then it would be anarchy and people could do whatever they could get away with.
This is why I believe it is a bad idea for only the government to have the ability to use force. It doesn't mater how unlikely I think it is we would ever need to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, we still should not surrender that ability because one thing mankind's history has proven is that power corrupts.
What do you think the idiot currently in the White House would do if he had both a disarmed population and sufficient loyalty of the military? I shudder to think.
Exactly. A foreigner has no constitutional rights... but it isn't that much different than an American going on an African trophy hunt after paying for the license, is it? Kinda need access to a gun for that.
Not saying he's entitled to it. I'm just saying it would be a double-standard to expect to be able to hunt in other countries and not allow a foreigner to hunt here. I'm also saying it wasn't a gun show purchase without a license or whatever the insinuation was with gun shows above.
Double woosh. I said it isn't about whether or not God is real and yet you go right back to saying it is without addressing the point of attributing the right to a deity: it was to specifically deny itself or anyone else the power to change that right while, at the same time, legally defining/enshrining it. Because the Constitution is where lawmakers get their powers (including the power to change it) and it expressly states that neither they nor it has that power, it accomplishes that whether or not God is real.
The Constitution itself is what gives lawmakers the power to amend/change the Constitution but it denies them and itself that specific power in no uncertain terms. That part is intended to be immutable and unchangeable, thus they attribute it to a deity and expressly forbid itself or anyone empowered by it the right to change that part.
Are you implying that he didn't need ID to get his hunting license? I wouldn't know but I expect he would. If you know otherwise, LMK.
Because of they have the same nationality/skin color?
I didn't think this kind of open racism was a thing around here.
Because everyone is innocent until proven guilty and there is no justification for blocking it for every Saudi in training? Yeah, I'd say it was probably something like that.
If that's all you are getting out of what I wrote then I can't help you. I can explain it, which I've done several times, but I can't understand it for you.I don't think you're reading what in writing, and all it seems like you're doing is selling me the 2A. This may come as a shock to you, but I support the 2A in the intent it was meant for.
In practice, rights only exist if one has the means of using violence to enforce them. That's why we need the military, law enforcement and the threat of violence to back up or laws and concept of which rights an individual is entitled to. Otherwise our laws would have no teeth and many would ignore them, as some already do.Maybe God will smite those who violate those God given rights, lol. How dare someone not believe!
If that's all you are getting out of what I wrote then I can't help you. I can explain it, which I've done several times, but I can't understand it for you.
I never mentioned God. You tried to insult me by posting:
In practice, rights only exist if one has the means of using violence to enforce them. That's why we need the military, law enforcement and the threat of violence to back up or laws and concept of which rights an individual is entitled to. Otherwise our laws would have no teeth and many would ignore them, and some already do.
STOP ^^^ the above is one complete idea. BELOW is a separate idea somewhat related.
The framers of our U.S. Constitution wrote the 2A not to grant the people the right to keep and bare arms, but to prevent the government from ever infringing upon that right. A right which they considered to be natural or (in their words, not mine) God given right.
Nothing I'm saying is trying to sell you on God or the 2A in any way. Again, I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.
So now being conservative and owning a gun means you want to help destroy our democratic government? I guess all gun owners are murderers too? And all black people are drug dealers? All immigrants are rapists?What do you think the idiot currently in the White House would do if he had both a disarmed population and sufficient loyalty of the military? I shudder to think.
VS.
I would disagree with you. I believe the vast majority of our troops and sworn law-enforcement are more loyal to the U.S. Constitution they swore to defend than to Trump.
You posted with a concern, and then changed your argument when you realized they all shared the same political affiliation. Why did you contradict your fear?
Why does it go over your head? As I said, all three groups are generally conservative,. How does having armed conservative citizens defend us against your hypothetical of the dotard capturing the military?
So unless you were replying directly to me I can't respond to your ideas? I never knew this thread was just a bunch of individual private conversations.Wowzers. Talk about some thin skin. Go back and read the first post you quoted me on. I wasn't even replying to you.
So you agree with me on the 2A, but still think we should surrender our 2A rights because we either won't need them or they won't be sufficient??? Those are the words of a slave.And in fact, the above and below are complimentary to each other in our country. The right to bear arms by the general populace was to protect us from an over bearing centralized government. I mean, do you honestly think that's a possibility now? Seems unlikely. Do you know any citizens that control the amount of firepower or money that our government / ruling class does? Which, wasn't even my point to begin with, lol...
I read all of your posts. Every word. Even when you go off on unrelated tangents. And I try real hard not to bring God into a debate so I can try to win it by pointing out that much evil has been done in the name of God. Believe me, I understand that. It still has nothing to do with the subject at hand or anything I've ever said.I'm not entirely sure what you think I don't understand. Once again, it seems you're not reading my posts, which are pretty much short and sweet about the dangers of pretending a God grants anything. I support the 2A and what it's intent is (and was), my gripe was only directed at man's ability to commit terrible acts under the assumption a God of any kind allows it. What part of that don't YOU understand?
Again, thanks for the sociology lesson!
So unless you were replying directly to me I can't respond to your ideas? I never knew this thread was just a bunch of individual private conversations.
So you agree with me on the 2A, but still think we should surrender our 2A rights because we either won't need them or they won't be sufficient??? Those are the words of a slave.
I read all of your posts. Every word. Even when you go off on unrelated tangents. And I try real hard not to bring God into a debate so I can try to win it by pointing out that much evil has been done in the name of God. Believe me, I understand that. It still has nothing to do with the subject at hand or anything I've ever said.