Do You Own a Gun?

[Radar]

The government is a creation of the people. It derives its limited powers from the consent of the governed. Because individuals never have the right to "remove" the legal rights of others, they can't give this authority to government. Any "legal process" that attempts to remove or change our rights is an invalid one.

Government is here to protect our rights, not to define them, limit them, or especially "remove" them.

[duck_duck]

Originally Posted by Radar

The government is a creation of the people. It derives its limited powers from the consent of the governed. Because individuals never have the right to "remove" the legal rights of others, they can't give this authority to government. Any "legal process" that attempts to remove or change our rights is an invalid one.

Government is here to protect our rights, not to define them, limit them, or especially "remove" them.

So what happens if the elected representatives decide to change your rights concerning free speech or other rights?

[Radar]

1) Your article said the weapon was permitted, not that he had a concealed permit.

2) You neglected to mention that the old man who was robbed by the 19 year old thug, was a 70 year old man or that he'd taken a diamond ring worth nearly $18,000.

3) As far as I can tell the trial is ongoing and he has not been convicted of murder.

4) If you rob someone and you get killed by them, it's not murder no matter what anyone says... including a jury.

Nope, you've failed the challenge.

You asked if what I said applies to cities, and yes it does. Crime has dropped in every city that has allowed concealed carry laws including Philadelphia, Denver, and Minnesota.

[bluecuracao]

Originally Posted by Radar

1) Your article said the weapon was permitted, not that he had a concealed permit.

2) You neglected to mention that the old man who was robbed by the 19 year old thug, was a 70 year old man or that he'd taken a diamond ring worth nearly $18,000.

3) As far as I can tell the trial is ongoing and he has not been convicted of murder.

4) If you rob someone and you get killed by them, it's not murder no matter what anyone says... including a jury.

Nope, you've failed the challenge.

He did have a conceal permit, was convicted, and is now in prison. #4 is your opinion only.

Originally Posted by Radar

You asked if what I said applies to cities, and yes it does. Crime has dropped in every city that has allowed concealed carry laws including Philadelphia, Denver, and Minnesota.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by bluecuracao

He did have a conceal permit, was convicted, and is now in prison. #4 is your opinion only.

#4 is the opinion of every rational, reasonable, and intelligent person.

You didn't provide any links, and have proven no rise in crime since carry permits were instituted.

The man didn't commit murder, and if he was convicted (which I've seen no evidence of) of such, he was convicted wrongfully.

It's not murder to shoot the person who robbed you, raped you, assaulted you, etc. even if he's trying to get away with the loot. If I catch someone stealing my car, I have the right to shoot them dead.

[Radar]

Than you revolt and kill them. Elected officials should always fear for their lives if they violate our rights.

[duck_duck]

But isn't your rights defined by the law of the nation you live in? If your leaders change those rights then are they breaking the law or violating anything?
Yes this is all hypothetical and not likely to happen in most western nations but what if it did?

[Radar]

No, your rights are not defined by the law of a nation you happen to live in. The ways in which a nation will protect your rights or violate them are in the laws. Some nations violate rights more than others.

When the elected officials (servants) of a country try to infringe upon the rights of their masters, they are violating the bounds of their legitimate authority and violating the trust put in them.

It is not only the right, but also the duty of the people to revolt when this happens.

Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

[duck_duck]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

But this didn't apply to all men when it was written. It took a civil war and 100 years after that, amendments to secure those rights for african americans.
Not only that but it didn't include women. It took the 19th amendment of the early 20th century to allow women to vote in america. The point is since the elected government can make changes to the constitution then what is to stop it from making more changes besides revolt? An armed revolt in america today will amount to nothing without military support.

[Radar]

Yes, it did apply to all men when it was written. It didn't apply to blacks (who were considered livestock) and didn't apply to women. The civil war was not over slavery.

Yes, the Constitution can change with time, but it was created to place limits on government, not our rights. This is why the 16th and 18th amendments were violations...that and the 16th was fraudulently ratified.

Less than 1/1000th of our military would ever fire on Americans even during a revolt and if they were ordered to do so, and those that didn't would defend us from those who did.

[duck_duck]

Originally Posted by Radar

No, your rights are not defined by the law of a nation you happen to live in. The ways in which a nation will protect your rights or violate them are in the laws. Some nations violate rights more than others.

When the elected officials (servants) of a country try to infringe upon the rights of their masters, they are violating the bounds of their legitimate authority and violating the trust put in them.

It is not only the right, but also the duty of the people to revolt when this happens.
Yes, it did apply to all men when it was written. It didn't apply to blacks (who were considered livestock) and didn't apply to women. The civil war was not over slavery.

That statement contradicts itself because blacks are men. And women are their equals.
I know the civil war was not about slavery, it was about state's right but it took a conflict like that to get rid of slavery and see black folks as people too. But it took another 100 years before they were seen as equals. So that initial statement of the declaration of independence didn't really apply to all men.

Originally Posted by Radar

Yes, the Constitution can change with time, but it was created to place limits on government, not our rights. This is why the 16th and 18th amendments were violations...that and the 16th was fraudulently ratified.

Then why are they in effect?

Originally Posted by Radar

Less than 1/1000th of our military would ever fire on Americans even during a revolt and if they were ordered to do so, and those that didn't would defend us from those who did.

That is good to know.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by duck_duck

That statement contradicts itself because blacks are men. And women are their equals.
I know the civil war was not about slavery, it was about state's right but it took a conflict like that to get rid of slavery and see black folks as people too. But it took another 100 years before they were seen as equals. So that initial statement of the declaration of independence didn't really apply to all men.

At that time, it applied to all who were considered men. And later it also applied to women, and to blacks who were then considered men. Whether or not women or blacks were considered equals at the time it was written is completely irrelevant and does nothing whatsoever to invalidate what they said.

Originally Posted by duck_duck

Then why are they in effect?

They aren't. The 18th was a violation of our rights and of the limits on the powers of Congress, but even still it was repealed. And the 16th also became null and void the moment it was fraudulently ratified. Several IRS agents asked the government to show them the law that compels Americans to pay income taxes. Rather than show them, they were given resignation papers because there is no such law.

Originally Posted by duck_duck

That is good to know.

I agree.

[duck_duck]

Originally Posted by Radar

At that time, it applied to all who were considered men. And later it also applied to women, and to blacks who were then considered men. Whether or not women or blacks were considered equals at the time it was written is completely irrelevant and does nothing whatsoever to invalidate what they said.

How can you say that? People are people and because the views at the time does not make specific groups any less as people. So the "all men are created equal" idea was a farce at the time. All men were created equal as long as they were white males is what it meant. If it wasn't, then there would have never been any need for later laws to include others.

Originally Posted by Radar

They aren't. The 18th was a violation of our rights and of the limits on the powers of Congress, but even still it was repealed. And the 16th also became null and void the moment it was fraudulently ratified. Several IRS agents asked the government to show them the law that compels Americans to pay income taxes. Rather than show them, they were given resignation papers because there is no such law.

The 18th amendment was repealed, my mistake. But the 16th was not and your income taxes are still in place despite IRS agents inquiry on the law.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by duck_duck

How can you say that? People are people and because the views at the time does not make specific groups any less as people. So the "all men are created equal" idea was a farce at the time. All men were created equal as long as they were white males is what it meant. If it wasn't, then there would have never been any need for later laws to include others.

It wasn't a farce and yes the views at the time did matter. Stop acting like historical context is irrelevant. Making white men free was a first step. They were not free before this. At the time the declaration was made, it was a huge leap forward because it said power came from the people, and not god or a king.

Originally Posted by duck_duck

The 18th amendment was repealed, my mistake. But the 16th was not and your income taxes are still in place despite IRS agents inquiry on the law.

According to the first Supreme Court, and several subsequent supreme court cases, all laws which contradict the U.S. Constitution are automatically null and void. The 16th was not ratified by the correct number of states to have it ratified, and even if it did have the correct number of states, it violates other parts of the Constitution.

When you make an amendment to the Constitution it either adds to it, or removes another part of it. It may not contradict another part.

The Supreme Court has also ruled that income taxes are for corporations and not for individuals.

[Undertoad]

I'm increasingly of the belief that this thread should be closed for protection of us all. Not only have two Dwellars resigned as a result of it, in a fit of pique, but yesterday J and I had a big fight over it. It seems to be causing some sort of weird change to the, er, natural order of things.