Obama signs "Honoring America’s Veterans" act

I

InCognition

Active Member
Canna Sylvan said:
Where in the constitution does it have an exception to guns if population is over a certain amount, like in NYC or DC, where guns are banned? So in 50 years when everywhere has that population density, all guns are banned everywhere?
Click to expand...
Well you see, this is why the 2nd amendment has already been infringed upon. It's been infringed on, by the states who prohibit weapon ownership within those areas. It is unconstitutional period.

Though the states have sovereignty-rights regarding the constitution, they cannot legally nor constitutionally breach the principles of the constitution itself. Infringing on gun ownership, on the premise of population, is nothing other than unconstitutional.

So to answer your question, when population gets to dense everywhere... no, the government nor the states would be allowed to ban guns everywhere. It's unconstitutional, period. And there is no provision that could make such a ban constitutional otherwise.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
InCognition said:
Well you see, this is why the 2nd amendment has already been infringed upon. It's been infringed on, by the states who prohibit weapon ownership within those areas. It is unconstitutional period.

Though the states have sovereignty-rights regarding the constitution, they cannot legally nor constitutionally breach the principles of the constitution itself. Infringing on gun ownership, on the premise of population, is nothing other than unconstitutional.

So to answer your question, when population gets to dense everywhere... no, the government nor the states would be allowed to ban guns everywhere. It's unconstitutional, period. And there is no provision that could make such a ban constitutional otherwise.
Click to expand...
They tried before by ruling that it isn't an individual right. The wedge has been set; expect a fight around it ... probably a losing one in a few decades. cn
 
I

InCognition

Active Member
Anyone who opposes a group of people gathering for a protest, at the funeral of a soldier who died with the potential intent to protect those amendments/rights, is nothing other than a hypocrite.

If someone is going to protest anything at a soldier's funeral, that protest better be respected among all, because ultimately one who doesn't respect the protest is not respecting themselves, nor the soldier they are paying their respects to.

This is the road America is going down now, and it's dangerous. People need some thicker skin, dampened egos, and an ability to think without using ignorance/hypocrisy as a foundation to their intellect, or lack-there-of.
 
I

InCognition

Active Member
cannabineer said:
They tried before by ruling that it isn't an individual right. The wedge has been set; expect a fight around it ... probably a losing one in a few decades. cn
Click to expand...
The courts can rule as they wish. They are corrupted, and incorrect none-the-less.

A slap of a wooden mallette, and some paperwork, will never be a righteous justification in regards to eliminating human rights. Gun ownership is a human right, not a government-granted privilege.

Beyond the fact that it's a natural right, it's a constitutional violation in every degree imaginable, to deny the amendment that protects this right. Again, courts can deem unconstitutionality as constitutional... this is America 2012, where the new illegal is actually legal, only when in the hands of government.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
InCognition, I am curious how you square the idea that gun ownership is a human right (by implication basic and universal) with the fact that many prosperous, liberal nations don't accord it. What I see in practice ... is a privilege that the government can choose to grant or deny. The USA is unusual in having the right codified in our core legal document. However, we see that that doesn't protect it from the destructive interpretations of guys with "mallettes".
An abstract right is uninteresting. If it's a concrete right ... please explain most of Europe and first-world Asia. cn
 
I

InCognition

Active Member
UncleBuck said:
people who graduate at the top of their law class, like you claim to have done, know how to spell words and stuff. they usually don't have to hide their grows from mommy and daddy, either.

lol. just lol. the internet is so much fun. everyone is a lawyer who scored 1600 on their SATs. :clap:
Click to expand...
I did graduate at the top of my law class.

I can spell words. Throwing "-" into the word, is with the intent of making the word easier to read, especially for folk like yourself. There is nothing incorrect about it.

No I did not score 1600 on my SAT's, I scored right around the 1500 area. It must hurt knowing that someone you think is stupid, is actually smarter than yourself. Truth hurts sometimes, but you'll have to cope with that on your own.

You must live in a cave if you don't have to hide grows from anyone who enters your home. Grows are pretty obvious when done in anything other than a trap room with sound eliminating measures in place. I don't live in a cave.

Yes, the internet is fun. :clap:
 
I

InCognition

Active Member
cannabineer said:
InCognition, I am curious how you square the idea that gun ownership is a human right (by implication basic and universal) with the fact that many prosperous, liberal nations don't accord it. What I see in practice ... is a privilege that the government can choose to grant or deny. The USA is unusual in having the right codified in our core legal document. However, we see that that doesn't protect it from the destructive interpretations of guys with "mallettes".
An abstract right is uninteresting. If it's a concrete right ... please explain most of Europe and first-world Asia. cn
Click to expand...
I'll just leave it at the fact that self-preservation, and personal defense via firearms is a natural human right, given that the person can afford firearms on their own. When a government possesses firearms, it's unethical to deny their population firearms.

What's in practice, regarding what a government can choose to grant or deny, demonstrates the unjust nature of government in regards to firearms. Firearm ownership is a right, yet the government takes this right, and legally manipulates it into a "privilege". It's like the wolf granting "privileges" to a sheep, in regards to how the sheep is supposed to defend itself from the wolf itself, and other wolves among the sheep's environment.

The way I explain most of Europe, and first world Asia, is just status-quo, right-denying, unjust, unethical, government. Government's don't like when their population has weapons. Europe and Asia are no different.

Laws can deny rights all day, and it's still a law, because "law said so". It doesn't mean the law is right. Denying firearms to any human being is wrong, regardless of the legalities that pertain to such a right, or as governments call it, "a privilege".
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
people who graduate at the top of their law class, like you claim to have done, know how to spell words and stuff. they usually don't have to hide their grows from mommy and daddy, either.

lol. just lol. the internet is so much fun. everyone is a lawyer who scored 1600 on their SATs. :clap:
Click to expand...

Ever try to rate yourself using your own standards?
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
InCognition, I am curious how you square the idea that gun ownership is a human right (by implication basic and universal) with the fact that many prosperous, liberal nations don't accord it. What I see in practice ... is a privilege that the government can choose to grant or deny. The USA is unusual in having the right codified in our core legal document. However, we see that that doesn't protect it from the destructive interpretations of guys with "mallettes".
An abstract right is uninteresting. If it's a concrete right ... please explain most of Europe and first-world Asia. cn
Click to expand...
According to the Dec of Independence, our rights are UNalienable. You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.
 
I

InCognition

Active Member
NoDrama said:
Ever try to rate yourself using your own standards?
Click to expand...
He can't. Unfortunately hypocrisy among one's self, such as himself, makes it nearly impossible for such to be done.

Calling people out for grammar & spelling, when both mistakes are also committed by the accuser of such "errors" - hypocrisy

Supporting government's role in taking from some, in order to give to another, on the premise of "good" - hypocrisy

Defending unconstitutionality, while supporting constitutional rights - hypocrisy

The list goes on...

Hypocrites are funny little creatures, that's for sure. They sure add to the entertainment though.
 
I

InCognition

Active Member
NoDrama said:
According to the Dec of Independence, our rights are UNalienable. You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.
Click to expand...
AMEN.

The supreme court, and governments around the world seem to be losing a grasp of this very simple concept... unalienable rights.

Others tend to embrace this exact fallacy, using premises such as "well guns are illegal there because the population is too dense". Once population density has any bearing what-so-ever on unalienable rights, then these type of folk can make a legitimate point. Unfortunately for these folk, population density will never have any justified bearing on unalienable rights. Until then, folks of this type are just of the ignorant type, and not much more.
 
ink the world

ink the world

Well-Known Member
Heh, fucking religious nutbags planned to pull that shit around here.

They were told they had every right to do so, they also were told they would have no police protection. There was a human wall of vets and bikers at the services. My shop offered discounts to all that helped out. No idiots showed up.

They can have their free speech, and they can have my boot shoved up their ass for it. Protesting at a funeral
is wrong in so many ways. Those fucks deserve whatever beatings they get.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
According to the Dec of Independence, our rights are UNalienable. You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.
Click to expand...

That's nice but it is bullshit.


the only right you actually own is the right to due process, the rest, life, liberty and property can all be removed from you.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
canndo said:
That's nice but it is bullshit.


the only right you actually own is the right to due process, the rest, life, liberty and property can all be removed from you.
Click to expand...
I would go a step further. The concept of inalienable (the word "unalienable" is new to me and dysphonious with its use of a Germanic prefix on a Latin root) rights was revolutionary in its day. The only reason it's in our cultural vocabulary is because two of those revolutions (USA, France; am I forgetting others?) "took".
But all human rights can be alienated, abridged or simply withheld, except for the one so-far truly inalienable: to die. All others require negotiation between individual and state. Jmo. cn

<edit> I may need to correct myself - Wiktionary sees a useful difference in the terminology. "Unalienable" seems to be a specialist term, "not transferable or assignable".
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/inalienable
 
I

InCognition

Active Member
ink the world said:
Heh, fucking religious nutbags planned to pull that shit around here.

They were told they had every right to do so, they also were told they would have no police protection. There was a human wall of vets and bikers at the services. My shop offered discounts to all that helped out. No idiots showed up.

They can have their free speech, and they can have my boot shoved up their ass for it. Protesting at a funeral
is wrong in so many ways. Those fucks deserve whatever beatings they get.
Click to expand...
Physically assaulting or beating someone for free speech & peaceful assembly is wrong in so many ways as well. It's wrong just as equally, if not more so wrong than protesting a soldier's funeral.

They can have their free speech & peaceful assembly, because it's their right to do so. However you don't have a right to physically assault anyone for free speech, regardless as to whatever reasons you think such an assault would be justified or warranted.
 
ink the world

ink the world

Well-Known Member
InCognition said:
Physically assaulting or beating someone for free speech & peaceful assembly is wrong in so many ways as well. It's wrong just as equally, if not more so wrong than protesting a soldier's funeral.

They can have their free speech & peaceful assembly, because it's their right to do so. However you don't have a right to physically assault anyone for free speech, regardless as to whatever reasons you think such an assault would be justified or warranted.
Click to expand...
Harassing the family members of a dead vet is the act of a coward. They know damn well that what they are doing is hateful and to me the act of a coward.

I have a bank envelope in our safe at home with $1500 in it for such occasions. It's my "oops I got pinched and need bail $ fund.". I'm no bully, but I'd gladly take a charge for defending a bets family and allowing them
to bury their loved one in peace.

Maybe it's because I'm a veteran, maybe it's because I have some kind of basic respect for people. If they wanna protest they have that right, just have some decency and don't harass a dead vets family. You don't see vets protesting and harrassing dead hippies families.

They wanna gather in a large group, so will we. They want to get people's ire up and they do. Save the morality bullshit for someone else. I have 0 respect for those fucks, spineless religious nuts. Let's see Jesus save them
from the beatings they all deserve.

Sometimes standing up for what's right and decent isn't easy and involves risk. These people know damn well the reaction they're gonna get, they ask for it. You don't poke a bear and then act shocked when
said bear rips off your legs
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
You have to realize though
The reason they do what they do
is to make money off lawsuits from people attacking them
And everytime I see Phelps and his family. The only thing that goes thru my mind is the word "incest"
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
Fred Notorious G.O.D. Phelps is an eccentric old man and the head of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas. He took charge of Westboro in 1978 after the church's founder, John Wayne Gacy (see famous clowns, was arrested on 32 counts of abducting, sodomizing, and murdering young men. Phelps has carried on Gacy's legacy by marrying his ex-wife and preaching Gacy's "tough love" message to homosexuals. Phelps relies on religious blackmail and mind control rather than murder to silence his thousands of victims, usually by appearing at high-profile events such as military funerals and holding signs reading "God hates fags" and "If you tell, you'll burn in Hell". Westboro Baptist church now has 13 members, all named Phelps, including his adopted daughter whose brainwashing was accomplished by daily beatings; however she now smiles in a rather disturbing manner and has become a thespian.
In 2007, in a news conference conducted by satellite from heaven, God criticized Phelps as "a vile, blaspheming asshole who believes I will not be happy with America until all homosexuals, Catholics, Jews, Irish, Blacks, Chinese and anyone not named Phelps are rounded into concentration camps and gassed to death. This is not my position."
Phelps first achieved international notoriety when he picketed the crucifixion of Jesus, holding signs reading, "Jesus is going to Hell", "God Hates Jesus", and "Jesus=Fag Enabler". "He's promoting tolerance of that filthy lifestyle," Phelps said at the picketing, "With all this nonsense and hogwash about 'Love thy neighbour' and all that stuff. He's preaching the fag agenda, and we need to inject some Bible truth into these doomed Christians." He couldn't stay for the whole crucifixion, having to make an appointment to have semen pumped from his stomach.
Fred Phelps is "Super Fabulous" and is loved so much in Commonwealths like Kentuckistan, that legislatures have written laws demanding Phelps show up at as many funerals is possible. He is even more loved when he comes to the military funerals to comfort the families and spread his homosexual ways. Yes, indeed we truly love Fred Phelps.
 
ink the world

ink the world

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
You have to realize though
The reason they do what they do
is to make money off lawsuits from people attacking them
And everytime I see Phelps and his family. The only thing that goes thru my mind is the word "incest"
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's what the police told us right before they left the area, noting to us they wouldn't be there to witness anything. They told us it would be one sides word against the other.

They told the small group of idiots the same thing. That small group (outnumbered 5 x 1) then left without any bullshit.

If a group of 20 jackasses wants to go with a group of 200 bikers, it's their choice and their funeral. Funny, you see a high percentage of cops are vets, guess whose side they take?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top