# Does the Constitution really give us inalienable rights that cannot be taken away?



## Ben Thomson (Jul 3, 2021)

We all seem to think our constitutional rights are etched in stone and cannot be violated. In fact they are at the whim of politicians who can justify taking them away with a stroke of the pen. George Carlin had an opinion on that..you think your rights are inviolate. He said if you do just go to Wikipedia and in the search box type in..Japanese-Americans 1942


----------



## westwall (Jul 3, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> We all seem to think our constitutional rights are etched in stone and cannot be violated. In fact they are at the whim of politicians who can justify taking them away with a stroke of the pen. George Carlin had an opinion on that..you think your rights are inviolate. He said if you do just go to Wikipedia and in the search box type in..Japanese-Americans 1942






Indeed.  That's why the fascists in our government want to disarm us.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jul 3, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> We all seem to think our constitutional rights are etched in stone and cannot be violated. In fact they are at the whim of politicians who can justify taking them away with a stroke of the pen. George Carlin had an opinion on that..you think your rights are inviolate. He said if you do just go to Wikipedia and in the search box type in..Japanese-Americans 1942


its supposed to,, but we have authoritarians like dems and repubes that just dont care about anything but their own power,,,


----------



## Ben Thomson (Jul 3, 2021)

westwall said:


> Ben Thomson said:
> 
> 
> > We all seem to think our constitutional rights are etched in stone and cannot be violated. In fact they are at the whim of politicians who can justify taking them away with a stroke of the pen. George Carlin had an opinion on that..you think your rights are inviolate. He said if you do just go to Wikipedia and in the search box type in..Japanese-Americans 1942
> ...


Gun control is not disarmament...it's gun requlation.


----------



## westwall (Jul 3, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Ben Thomson said:
> ...






Can't march armed people to the concentration camps.  So, no, you are wrong.  As usual.


----------



## Ben Thomson (Jul 3, 2021)

westwall said:


> Ben Thomson said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Not wrong..gun control is just gun regulation


----------



## westwall (Jul 3, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Ben Thomson said:
> ...








Gun regulation inexorably leads to gun confiscation.  100% of the time.  No gun registration scheme has ever NOT then led to confiscation.

True story.  But that's history.  And we all know you fascists try and hide, or rewrite history.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 3, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Ben Thomson said:
> ...


You want gun regulations but are against voter regulations, why?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 3, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Ben Thomson said:
> ...


How clearer is SHALL NOT BE INFRINGE should the founders make it?


----------



## Ben Thomson (Jul 3, 2021)

bear513 said:


> Ben Thomson said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Don't have a problem with voter regulations, but do with voter suppression tactics..slight difference.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 3, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Ben Thomson said:
> ...


It's only your opinion that their is a difference


----------



## deannalw (Jul 3, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> We all seem to think our constitutional rights are etched in stone and cannot be violated. In fact they are at the whim of politicians who can justify taking them away with a stroke of the pen. George Carlin had an opinion on that..you think your rights are inviolate. He said if you do just go to Wikipedia and in the search box type in..Japanese-Americans 1942




You're wrong. It's not quite that simple. It can't be done by the stroke of a pen. They did it that way for a reason.


----------



## Ben Thomson (Jul 3, 2021)

bear513 said:


> Ben Thomson said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Voter suppression tactics are public record so a little more than just an opinion.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam (Jul 3, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> We all seem to think our constitutional rights are etched in stone and cannot be violated. In fact they are at the whim of politicians who can justify taking them away with a stroke of the pen. George Carlin had an opinion on that..you think your rights are inviolate. He said if you do just go to Wikipedia and in the search box type in..Japanese-Americans 1942


The Bill of Rights which are the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution is an enumeration of rights that "the people" possess that the government shall not violate.  It doesn't grant anything, it acknowledges and protects those rights that the people have by virtue of being human (natural rights)


----------



## Ben Thomson (Jul 3, 2021)

deannalw said:


> Ben Thomson said:
> 
> 
> > We all seem to think our constitutional rights are etched in stone and cannot be violated. In fact they are at the whim of politicians who can justify taking them away with a stroke of the pen. George Carlin had an opinion on that..you think your rights are inviolate. He said if you do just go to Wikipedia and in the search box type in..Japanese-Americans 1942
> ...


Japanese internment *camps* *were* established during World War II by President Franklin D. Roosevelt through his *Executive* *Order* 9066 = stroke of a pen


----------



## Ben Thomson (Jul 3, 2021)

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Ben Thomson said:
> 
> 
> > We all seem to think our constitutional rights are etched in stone and cannot be violated. In fact they are at the whim of politicians who can justify taking them away with a stroke of the pen. George Carlin had an opinion on that..you think your rights are inviolate. He said if you do just go to Wikipedia and in the search box type in..Japanese-Americans 1942
> ...


Which can be circumvented by a stroke of the pen.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 3, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> deannalw said:
> 
> 
> > Ben Thomson said:
> ...


I see you failed to mention he was a democrat, why?


----------



## Ben Thomson (Jul 3, 2021)

bear513 said:


> Ben Thomson said:
> 
> 
> > deannalw said:
> ...


Because I was talking about written in stone rights that can be taken away easily..wasn't talking about partisan politics..that's why.


----------



## deannalw (Jul 3, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> deannalw said:
> 
> 
> > Ben Thomson said:
> ...




That was a shitty thing we did, but wasn't against the Constitution. The Supreme Court said so.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam (Jul 3, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> deannalw said:
> 
> 
> > Ben Thomson said:
> ...


Correction:
And while these actions were ultimately determined to have been constitutional, the U.S. government issued a formal apology for its acts and paid reparations to the survivors or their decedants for having done so.


----------



## deannalw (Jul 3, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Ben Thomson said:
> ...




What do you have against the Constitution of the United States?

One of the more perfect and brilliant documents on the planet.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (Jul 3, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> We all seem to think our constitutional rights are etched in stone and cannot be violated.


I do not think that.


Ben Thomson said:


> In fact they are at the whim of politicians who can justify taking them away with a stroke of the pen.


I do not believe that either. I think it is a very steep step to justify eliminating any rights that are assumed, much less, well described in promulgated law.


Ben Thomson said:


> George Carlin had an opinion on that..you think your rights are inviolate. He said if you do just go to Wikipedia and in the search box type in..Japanese-Americans 1942


Carlin said that - I thought he died before Wikipedia was established.


----------



## Ben Thomson (Jul 3, 2021)

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Ben Thomson said:
> 
> 
> > deannalw said:
> ...


After the fact of having their constitutional rights violated.


----------



## Esdraelon (Jul 3, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> We all seem to think our constitutional rights are etched in stone and cannot be violated. In fact they are at the whim of politicians who can justify taking them away with a stroke of the pen. George Carlin had an opinion on that..you think your rights are inviolate. He said if you do just go to Wikipedia and in the search box type in..Japanese-Americans 1942


A government will always be ready to take rights.  That's basically the rationale behind 2A.  If a free people are unwilling to risk anything to stay free then they WILL eventually be enslaved.  The point our Founders made clear is that human beings are BORN with God-given rights and the Constitution was written to limit GOVERNMENTS, not citizens.  
The sheep in the Blutopias seem willing to give up everything for "safety" based on promises and government goodies.  They get what they deserve.  It's every citizen's choice to defend their freedom or relinquish it.  Those choices don't come without a cost.


----------



## gipper (Jul 3, 2021)

deannalw said:


> Ben Thomson said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


If only the elites were constrained by it.


----------



## Ben Thomson (Jul 3, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> Ben Thomson said:
> 
> 
> > We all seem to think our constitutional rights are etched in stone and cannot be violated.
> ...


Nope.. reference Carlin's mention of Wikipedia at about 6:55 in this video..


----------



## progressive hunter (Jul 3, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Ben Thomson said:
> ...


and that is disarmament when they take away what you can use to defend yourself from them,


----------



## Votto (Jul 3, 2021)

westwall said:


> Ben Thomson said:
> 
> 
> > We all seem to think our constitutional rights are etched in stone and cannot be violated. In fact they are at the whim of politicians who can justify taking them away with a stroke of the pen. George Carlin had an opinion on that..you think your rights are inviolate. He said if you do just go to Wikipedia and in the search box type in..Japanese-Americans 1942
> ...


They should have taken the guns away before taking the police away.

Now people know that if they surrender their guns they will be at the mercy of those who are lawless.

It's too late now.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jul 3, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> 
> 
> > Ben Thomson said:
> ...


so you get your constitutional advice from a comedian,,

no wonder you get so many things wrong,,


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam (Jul 3, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> > Ben Thomson said:
> ...


Our government violates our constitutional rights ALL of the time all while pretending that they're not because they're doing so in accordance with some "law" that itself is unconstitutional.  

And unless I've missed something, when it has ultimate been determined that their behavior/the law was unconstitutional there is no recourse for the individuals whose rights had been violated during the time the unconstitutional law was in effect.  And some things simply can't be undone, like the very intrusive privacy violations that occur when the government is unconstitutionally profiling you.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam (Jul 3, 2021)

ESDRAELON said:


> Ben Thomson said:
> 
> 
> > We all seem to think our constitutional rights are etched in stone and cannot be violated. In fact they are at the whim of politicians who can justify taking them away with a stroke of the pen. George Carlin had an opinion on that..you think your rights are inviolate. He said if you do just go to Wikipedia and in the search box type in..Japanese-Americans 1942
> ...


Unfortunately that's not the way it works.  I wasn't given a choice in the passage of the Patriot Act, just as one example.


----------



## Ben Thomson (Jul 3, 2021)

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Ben Thomson said:
> 
> 
> > NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> ...


And if a politically biased SCOTUS reaffirms the taking away of that right what recourse do we have. One recourse proclaimed by some people is armed rebellion but that will never have a chance of succeeding. The other is for the people to vote out those politicians and replace them with ones who will restore those rights. That process unfortunately would take an excruciatingly long time.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 3, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> > Ben Thomson said:
> ...


It worked in 1776 and just recently in Afghanistan against the most powerful military in the world


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 3, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> We all seem to think our constitutional rights are etched in stone and cannot be violated. In fact they are at the whim of politicians who can justify taking them away with a stroke of the pen. George Carlin had an opinion on that..you think your rights are inviolate. He said if you do just go to Wikipedia and in the search box type in..Japanese-Americans 1942



"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."


No, our *Creator *endowed all (wo)men with *unalienable Rights.    *


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam (Jul 3, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> > Ben Thomson said:
> ...


True and I don't know what the solution is or if there is even one.


----------



## Pellinore (Jul 3, 2021)

The Constitution doesn't "give" us squat.  All it does is delineate the natural rights we all have, and give our elected bodies the structure and authority to defend them.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 3, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> We all seem to think our constitutional rights are etched in stone and cannot be violated. In fact they are at the whim of politicians who can justify taking them away with a stroke of the pen. George Carlin had an opinion on that..you think your rights are inviolate. He said if you do just go to Wikipedia and in the search box type in..Japanese-Americans 1942


Because our rights are inalienable, they can be neither bestowed nor taken by any government, constitution, or man.

Although inalienable, our rights are not absolute – they’re subject to limits and restrictions by government consistent with Constitutional case law.

Laws and measures that limit or restrict a right consistent with the Constitution do not ‘take away’ one’s rights.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 3, 2021)

westwall said:


> Indeed. That's why the fascists in our government want to disarm us.


This is a lie.

No one seeks to ‘disarm’ anyone.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 3, 2021)

bear513 said:


> How clearer is SHALL NOT BE INFRINGE should the founders make it?


Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence are perfectly lawful and Constitutional – no rights having been ‘infringed.’

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law – including the Second Amendment.


----------



## Ben Thomson (Jul 3, 2021)

westwall said:


> Ben Thomson said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


When was the last time this country confiscated every citizen's guns??


----------



## Ben Thomson (Jul 3, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Ben Thomson said:
> 
> 
> > We all seem to think our constitutional rights are etched in stone and cannot be violated. In fact they are at the whim of politicians who can justify taking them away with a stroke of the pen. George Carlin had an opinion on that..you think your rights are inviolate. He said if you do just go to Wikipedia and in the search box type in..Japanese-Americans 1942
> ...


Is that what the Japanese-Americans were told in 1942?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jul 3, 2021)

deannalw said:


> Ben Thomson said:
> 
> 
> > We all seem to think our constitutional rights are etched in stone and cannot be violated. In fact they are at the whim of politicians who can justify taking them away with a stroke of the pen. George Carlin had an opinion on that..you think your rights are inviolate. He said if you do just go to Wikipedia and in the search box type in..Japanese-Americans 1942
> ...



They can if nobody stands up to stop them from doing it.  We saw that very scenario last year all over the country.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 3, 2021)

Votto said:


> They should have taken the guns away before taking the police away.
> 
> Now people know that if they surrender their guns they will be at the mercy of those who are lawless.
> 
> It's too late now.


This is a lie.

No one seeks to ‘take away’ guns or the police.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jul 3, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Because our rights are inalienable, they can be neither bestowed nor taken by any government, constitution, or man.
> 
> Although inalienable, our rights are not absolute – they’re subject to limits and restrictions by government consistent with Constitutional case law.
> 
> Laws and measures that limit or restrict a right consistent with the Constitution do not ‘take away’ one’s rights.


George Takei would disagree with you.


----------



## Ben Thomson (Jul 3, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > They should have taken the guns away before taking the police away.
> ...


It's just a scare tactic the wingers are good at..we are being 'invaded' from the southern border..babies are screaming while being pulled apart in wombs..they are coming to take your guns away..yada..yada..yada


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 3, 2021)

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Our government violates our constitutional rights ALL of the time all while pretending that they're not because they're doing so in accordance with some "law" that itself is unconstitutional.


Wrong.

Acts of government are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise (see, for example, _US v. Morrison_ (2000)).

The doctrine of presumed constitutionality is the courts’ deference to the will of the people, as expressed through their elected representatives.

If the people err and enact laws or measures repugnant to the Constitution, they are at liberty to seek relief in the courts – it’s at the point that the Supreme Court rules a law or measure to be invalid that the law or measure is in fact un-Constitutional.

Citizens should not be so reckless and irresponsible to make claims that laws are ‘un-Constitutional’ when the courts have made no such determination.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 3, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Ben Thomson said:
> ...


 Chicago in the late 1980s


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 3, 2021)

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> I wasn't given a choice in the passage of the Patriot Act, just as one example.


The PA was authorized by the representatives you elected to Congress.

You’re at liberty to petition your elected representatives to repeal the PA.

You’re at liberty to file suit in Federal court to have the PA invalidated by the courts.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 3, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Votto said:
> ...


No it's not you ignorant clown,


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 3, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > They should have taken the guns away before taking the police away.
> ...


Lmao bullshit Chicago illegality took guns away asshole


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 3, 2021)

Pellinore said:


> The Constitution doesn't "give" us squat. All it does is delineate the natural rights we all have, and give our elected bodies the structure and authority to defend them.


Not exactly.

Constitutional case law establishes what limits government may place on our rights and protected liberties and what limits government may not.

Government can establish time, place, and manner restrictions on our speech, for example, provided such restrictions are content-neutral – such as government preempting the press from publishing troop movements during a time of war; but government may not preempt speech critical of, or in opposition to, that war.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 3, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> Is that what the Japanese-Americans were told in 1942?


That acts of government might be wrong, reprehensible, or otherwise ineffective doesn’t render them un-Constitutional.

Americans of Japanese ancestry did not have their Constitutional rights violated as a fact of law when they were subject to internment camps (see _Korematsu v. United States_ (1944)).

And don’t bother with the inane ‘sometimes the Supreme Court is wrong/_Dred Scott’_ fallacy – that sort of sophistry is devoid of merit.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 3, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> It's just a scare tactic the wingers are good at..we are being 'invaded' from the southern border..babies are screaming while being pulled apart in wombs..they are coming to take your guns away..yada..yada..yada


Correct.

And actually, they aren’t very good at it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 3, 2021)

bear513 said:


> Ben Thomson said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


Yes, it is.

Rightwing demagoguery, fearmongering, and lies.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam (Jul 4, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> > Our government violates our constitutional rights ALL of the time all while pretending that they're not because they're doing so in accordance with some "law" that itself is unconstitutional.
> ...


Does that make sense to you?  That our government can do anything they want until the Supreme Court says otherwise?  That any law they pass is by default constitutional until some entity or citizen launches an in most cases costly, and lengthy legal battle against them where the government can and does oftentimes refuse to turn over evidence in it's possession which will implicate it?

How many times has the government been wrong?  How many times has it admitted that it was wrong and voluntarily paid for the harm it caused (as opposed to being ordered to by a court or other entity). 

How would you feel if someone had you placed under unending surveillance based on a false premise for 1, 2 3, 5, 10, 15, years, etc?  Just because the courts and current law say that it's "legal", it's still a violation of privacy and can cause undue stress on the surveillance subject if they become aware that they are under surveillance.  And how do you compensate someone who had their privacy invaded for that many years and as a result of said surveillance had their life was destroyed because what the government did changed the whole trajectory of their life, even though the laws and surveillance were later ruled to be unlawful/unconstitutional?

I value your opinion on most legal and constitutional matters to the point if I had to guess I would peg you as an attorney or at least a law student, however you always being so ready to defend the powers that be because they can cite some legal text somewhere that justifies the things they do always disappoints me.  The rules and restrictions that each state places on their residents when it comes to keeping and bearing arms, *are *infringements of the 2nd amendment, even if they are  "lawful" infringements according to case law and to call them otherwise is just dishonest in my opinion and always will be.

Just because something is legal or ruled 'constitutional" doesn't mean it's right or ethical.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam (Jul 4, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> > I wasn't given a choice in the passage of the Patriot Act, just as one example.
> ...


Now you sound like them.  And this is exactly why I became a member of the ACLU.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 4, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> We all seem to think our constitutional rights are etched in stone and cannot be violated. In fact they are at the whim of politicians who can justify taking them away with a stroke of the pen. George Carlin had an opinion on that..you think your rights are inviolate. He said if you do just go to Wikipedia and in the search box type in..Japanese-Americans 1942



No, it prevents the US government (and now state govts) from doing things.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam (Jul 4, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Ben Thomson said:
> 
> 
> > Is that what the Japanese-Americans were told in 1942?
> ...


_*Korematsu v. United States*_*, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), was a *landmark United States Supreme Court case upholding the exclusion of Japanese Americans from the West Coast Military Area during World War II. _*The decision has widely been criticized,[1] with some scholars describing it as "an odious and discredited artifact of popular bigotry"[2] and as "a stain on American jurisprudence".[3] Chief Justice John Roberts explicitly repudiated the Korematsu decision in his majority opinion in the 2018 case of Trump v. Hawaii.*_[4]​​In the aftermath of Imperial Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt had issued Executive Order 9066 on February 19, 1942, authorizing the War Department to create military areas from which any or all Americans might be excluded. Subsequently, the Western Defense Command, a United States Army military command charged with coordinating the defense of the West Coast of the United States, ordered "all persons of Japanese ancestry, including aliens and non-aliens" to relocate to internment camps. However, a 23-year-old Japanese-American man, Fred Korematsu, refused to leave the exclusion zone and instead challenged the order on the grounds that it violated the Fifth Amendment.​​In a majority opinion joined by five other justices, Associate Justice *Hugo Black* held that_* the need to protect against espionage by Japan outweighed the rights of Americans of Japanese descent*_. Black wrote that: "Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of hostility to him or his race", but rather "because the properly constituted military authorities ... decided that the military urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens of Japanese ancestry be segregated from the West Coast" during the war against Japan. _*Dissenting justices Frank Murphy, Robert H. Jackson, and Owen J. Roberts all criticized the exclusion as racially discriminatory; Murphy wrote that the exclusion of Japanese "falls into the ugly abyss of racism" and resembled "the abhorrent and despicable treatment of minority groups by the dictatorial tyrannies which this nation is now pledged to destroy*_."​​_The Korematsu opinion was *the first instance in which the Supreme Court *applied the strict scrutiny standard of review to *racial discrimination by the government*; it is one of only a handful of cases in which the Court held that the government met that standard. _*Korematsu's conviction was voided by a California district court in 1983 on the grounds that Solicitor General Charles H. Fahy had suppressed a report from the Office of Naval Intelligence that held that there was no evidence that Japanese Americans were acting as spies for Japan. The Japanese-Americans who were interned were later granted reparations through the Civil Liberties Act of 1988.*​​*The case is often cited as one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in modern times.[5]*_*[6]*_


----------



## Colin norris (Jul 4, 2021)

westwall 
Fascists in the government my arse. 
There is No bill put forward wanting to disarm you.  You are a liar.  Piss off.


----------



## Batcat (Jul 4, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> Gun control is not disarmament...it's gun requlation.


Draconian gun regulation (Incremental style … one small step at  a time.)

1) All civilian owned ”assault rifles“ are banned and must be turned in. 

2) All civilian owned semi-automatic rifles and shotguns are banned and must be turned in. 

3) All civilian owned semi-automatic pistols are banned and must be turned in. 

4) All civilian owned handguns are banned and must be turned in. 

5) A citizen can own no more than one single shot rifle and one single shot or double barreled shotgun if he has a license and insurance.

 A license requires a psychological examination, a background check, approval by local law enforcement and a 40 hour gun safety course. The license itself will cost $500 per firearm and be good for a period of three years. 

Gun owners realize this incremental approach is being used by gun control advocates and  call it  “the camels nose under the tent.”


----------



## westwall (Jul 4, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> westwall
> Fascists in the government my arse.
> There is No bill put forward wanting to disarm you.  You are a liar.  Piss off.






Sure there are.  I own so called assault rifles.  Your fascist leaders want to ban them.  That would disarm me.

So you piss off.  Moron.


----------



## Colin norris (Jul 4, 2021)

westwall 
Assault weapons are not your only arsenal are they. You own several guns for no reason. 
You have no use whatsoever for a weapon specifically designed to kill things quickly. You have it because you are frightened of  democrat governments.  You don't need it for self protection. You have it because you can. 
Basically you are an insecure little  wimp.  
Those killing machines as will eventually be taken and you will have no say in it. Don't think You will beat the military so you piss off.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 4, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> deannalw said:
> 
> 
> > Ben Thomson said:
> ...



It was removed the next year because he realized it was going to be overturned as the illegal bullshit it was.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 4, 2021)

westwall said:


> Ben Thomson said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


No, it doesn't.
The Tommy gun was banned in 1934, you need a license to own one.
Why didn't the government ban all weapons in the 87 years since?


----------



## Pellinore (Jul 4, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Ben Thomson said:
> ...


You beat me to it. 

Also, the Assault Weapons Ban from the 90s.  It was enacted, it was in place for ten years, and then it went away.  No inexorable confiscation.


----------



## westwall (Jul 4, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> westwall
> Assault weapons are not your only arsenal are they. You own several guns for no reason.
> You have no use whatsoever for a weapon specifically designed to kill things quickly. You have it because you are frightened of  democrat governments.  You don't need it for self protection. You have it because you can.
> Basically you are an insecure little  wimp.
> Those killing machines as will eventually be taken and you will have no say in it. Don't think You will beat the military so you piss off.






I have every reason to own whatever I want.  And the Rumanian fascist government was overthrown just a couple of decades ago, so yeah, the military would lose in a civil war.  They are outnumbered over 10 to one.

And most would be on our side.  Not yours.

So have fun dreaming your fascist fantasies.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 4, 2021)

Batcat said:


> Ben Thomson said:
> 
> 
> > Gun control is not disarmament...it's gun requlation.
> ...


This fails as a slippery slope fallacy.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 4, 2021)

westwall said:


> Sure there are. I own so called assault rifles. Your fascist leaders want to ban them. That would disarm me.


This is a lie and you’re a liar.

The Supreme Court has never ruled to invalidate AWBs, advocates of such ‘bans’ are misguided but they’re not ‘fascists.’

Moreover, those who support a Federal AWB constitute a tiny, unrepresentative fringe minority.

Last, it’s a lie to claim that state residents subject to an AWB are ‘disarmed.’


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 4, 2021)

Pellinore said:


> Also, the Assault Weapons Ban from the 90s. It was enacted, it was in place for ten years, and then it went away. No inexorable confiscation.


Correct.

And there won’t be a ‘new’ AWB, no firearms will be ‘banned,’ no firearms will be ‘confiscated.’

Such is a ridiculous lie propagated by the dishonest right.


----------



## Colin norris (Jul 4, 2021)

westwall 
You have the guns because it does wonders for your ego. You have no need for it but the same old threat to take over the government. 
Why don't you all line up and take back the government you say was stolen from trump? You've done nothing  but cower  in the corner. 
The military would wipe out you Rambos in minutes. Grow up.


----------



## Batcat (Jul 4, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> > Ben Thomson said:
> ...


The fact that banning and confiscating civilian owned firearms has failed is not due to effort. The Big Bad NRA hasn’t really blocked it either.

The bottom line is the voters. Politicians know if they go too far the voters will boot them out of office. That’s why the favored approach is the incremental banning of firearms starting with the least popular, “assault rifles.”

Unfortunately the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in our nation and is selling like hot cakes. Even liberals are first time gun buyers since the democrats stupidly threw their police departments under the bus and crime is skyrocketing.









						Americans Are Buying Guns Like Never Before, As FBI Background Checks Outpace Last Year
					

The Federal Bureau of Investigation reported a total of 3.22 million background checks in May 2021, meaning that 2021 is on track to break last year’s record for data based on gun sales.




					www.forbes.com


----------



## Batcat (Jul 4, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> westwall
> You have the guns because it does wonders for your ego. You have no need for it but the same old threat to take over the government.
> Why don't you all line up and take back the government you say was stolen from trump? You've done nothing  but cower  in the corner.
> The military would wipe out you Rambos in minutes. Grow up.


Joe Biden may be a senile old fart and Kamala Harris is proving herself to be incompetent but few people would call the Biden administration tyrannical or a dictatorship. Sane and rational people don’t start rebellions unless there is no other choice. 

It does appear the democrats rigged the 2020 election but the proof is not in yet. The Arizona audit is finishing and other audits are being planned.

If enough election malfeasance is found across the nation to prove Trump did win the election who knows what will happen? I don’t necessarily see an uprising but I could be wrong.

As far as the Rambo comment just consider how well our big, bad military did in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.









						How Gun Ownership Protects Citizens From An Abusive Government
					

Much like the effect of one vote, one gun will not stop tyranny. But many together can enact change and protect citizens.




					thefederalist.com


----------



## westwall (Jul 4, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> westwall
> You have the guns because it does wonders for your ego. You have no need for it but the same old threat to take over the government.
> Why don't you all line up and take back the government you say was stolen from trump? You've done nothing  but cower  in the corner.
> The military would wipe out you Rambos in minutes. Grow up.






My ego is just fine without guns.  I find it amusing that you fascist loons are always so quick to commit violence. 

I am not.  So long as there is a chance to avoid a bloody Civil War I am happy to let the legal processes play out.

If the government continues to push its fascist agenda then there will be no choices left.

But I hope it doesn't come to that.


----------



## Death Angel (Jul 4, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> We all seem to think our constitutional rights are etched in stone and cannot be violated. In fact they are at the whim of politicians who can justify taking them away with a stroke of the pen. George Carlin had an opinion on that..you think your rights are inviolate. He said if you do just go to Wikipedia and in the search box type in..Japanese-Americans 1942


No. The Constitution only RECOGNIZES them.  When the government stops RECOGNIZING your rights they can certainly take them away by FORCE, but those rights are still GOD GIVEN and you still have them.


----------



## BlackSand (Jul 4, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Assault weapons are not your only arsenal are they. You own several guns for no reason.


.

Sweetie ... I don't own a single firearm that doesn't have a reason ... 
They are all pretty damn good at what they are intended to do.

.​


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 4, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> We all seem to think our constitutional rights are etched in stone and cannot be violated. In fact they are at the whim of politicians who can justify taking them away with a stroke of the pen. George Carlin had an opinion on that..you think your rights are inviolate. He said if you do just go to Wikipedia and in the search box type in..Japanese-Americans 1942


Capitalists are supposed to be for open market based metrics under any form of Capitalism for rational choice theory purposes. 

Why blame only Communists for also failing to bear true witness to their own Constitution?


----------



## Baron Von Murderpaws (Jul 4, 2021)

It's not the _Constitution_ you should be reading..............

it's all the *amendments, riders, revisions, alterations, modifications, and "reforms" *they've all done to it.


----------



## Pellinore (Jul 6, 2021)

Death Angel said:


> Ben Thomson said:
> 
> 
> > We all seem to think our constitutional rights are etched in stone and cannot be violated. In fact they are at the whim of politicians who can justify taking them away with a stroke of the pen. George Carlin had an opinion on that..you think your rights are inviolate. He said if you do just go to Wikipedia and in the search box type in..Japanese-Americans 1942
> ...


This is correct, and is the entire basis for the Bill of Rights.  If the King or the Pope or some other human give you rights, the Founders said, then they or some other human can take them away.  They changed the rules when they founded the country on the idea that those rights are natural and God-given, and can't be taken away by anyone.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 8, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> We all seem to think our constitutional rights are etched in stone and cannot be violated. In fact they are at the whim of politicians who can justify taking them away with a stroke of the pen. George Carlin had an opinion on that..you think your rights are inviolate. He said if you do just go to Wikipedia and in the search box type in..Japanese-Americans 1942


The logic of unalienable rights is that they are unalienable. They wouldn't need to be 'given' by a constitution. Which is why they were cited by the founders before there was a constitution.


----------



## Gabe Lackmann (Jul 8, 2021)

The courts are corrupt, and compromised. You have no rights. They can, have, and will take everything away from you. Not one Amendment in those first ten has not been widdled down to nothing. 
You have no rights. You are a slave.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 8, 2021)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Because our rights are inalienable, they can be neither bestowed nor taken by any government, constitution, or man.
> ...


Oh, unalienable rights can certainly be violated. But the concept of natural law is that they still exist even if violated. And exist autonomous of a government 'granting' such rights. 

The obvious flaws in the 'natural rights' theory were demonstrated by the man who wrote of 'unalienable' rights in our own founding documents: Slave owners. 

A mouse could starve on the difference between possessing an inalienable right that is being violated and not possessing the inalienable right to begin with.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 8, 2021)

Gabe Lackmann said:


> The courts are corrupt, and compromised. You have no rights. They can, have, and will take everything away from you. Not one Amendment in those first ten has not been widdled down to nothing.
> You have no rights. You are a slave.



We have far greater rights today than Americans did under the founders. Women can vote, black folks aren't slaves, the Bill of Rights applies to the States. 

We've helped perfect the deeply flawed constitution of the founders and in turn expand the rights and freedoms of our citizens.


----------



## Gabe Lackmann (Jul 8, 2021)

Skylar said:


> Gabe Lackmann said:
> 
> 
> > The courts are corrupt, and compromised. You have no rights. They can, have, and will take everything away from you. Not one Amendment in those first ten has not been widdled down to nothing.
> ...


Oh bless your heart. You are a modern one aren't you?

What about the Patriot Act? The War on Drugs? You don't think those have eroded at least the First, and Fourth Amendments? You know they can collect data, spy, take you into custody, and hold you indefinitely without a court hearing...right? That violates about three of the first ten.
What about the War on Drugs and asset forfeiture? If they detain you(pull you over), they can seize your cash for whatever reason they choose. If they find any amount of drugs in your house, or car, they can seize that property as well. If you phone is open, they can seize that and search through it...to include calling contacts.
They can silence your speech under the guise of national security. They do it all of the time. That's the First Amendment. 
During covid they openly and actively closed churches, businesses, limited public gatherings, and travel. 

You cannot possibly be serious. You cannot tell me that the a citizen today, and a citizen in 1800 share the same level of freedom.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 8, 2021)

Gabe Lackmann said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Gabe Lackmann said:
> ...


How about interracial marriage bans? Only land owners get to vote? Execution for homosexuality? The ownership, enslavement, torture or mutilation of tens of millions of people? Rampant violations of rights of the people by the States....which were completely unencumbered by the Bill of Rights? Women being forbidden from voting?

The freedoms we as a society possess now are vastly superior to those enjoyed by the the people during the era of the founders under their deeply flawed constitution. We've fixed many of their most egregious mistakes and liberty destroying flaws


----------



## dblack (Jul 8, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> We all seem to think our constitutional rights are etched in stone and cannot be violated. In fact they are at the whim of politicians who can justify taking them away with a stroke of the pen. George Carlin had an opinion on that..you think your rights are inviolate. He said if you do just go to Wikipedia and in the search box type in..Japanese-Americans 1942



Hardly anyone understands this, which is really unfortunate. Inalienable rights are inherent capabilities of human beings - essentially, what they're talking about is free will. No one gives that to you - it's something you're born with. And, short of killing you, it can't be taken from you. It can be violated, of course, by the state or by others. But as long as you are alive and conscious, and no one else is interfering with you, you have inalienable free will.

The point they were making was that basic freedom is the default state of every human. And that we create government, not to give us that freedom (we already have it), but to protect us from those who would violate it.


----------



## Gabe Lackmann (Jul 8, 2021)

Skylar said:


> Gabe Lackmann said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


 So in your logic, I can let you join the club by placing new shackles on your limbs. Great thinker. My right to a speedy and fair trial. My right to travel openly and freely. My right to practice my religion as I see fit...ARE paramount. To me. 
No offense to the down trodden blacks, gays, and women...but guess what? All of those groups who you claim have gained so many freedoms are now in the same boat...because they have been robbed as well. Congrats...you're free...not really.
We have a massive government overreach. To claim that this country is freer because a couple of groups have gained some rights is simplistic.


----------



## emilynghiem (Jul 9, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> We all seem to think our constitutional rights are etched in stone and cannot be violated. In fact they are at the whim of politicians who can justify taking them away with a stroke of the pen. George Carlin had an opinion on that..you think your rights are inviolate. He said if you do just go to Wikipedia and in the search box type in..Japanese-Americans 1942


The way Natural Laws work is you get the justice you give. The People set up agreements WITH EACH OTHER as to what the Rule of Law will be, such as was done by adding the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. This works as a mutually binding contract, where people agree to follow the same laws.

It falls apart where people don't agree to respect each other's equal rights and protections under the law.


----------



## Colin norris (Jul 9, 2021)

Batcat 
Same old election loss crap.  Grow up.  It's over and you.lost.


----------



## Batcat (Jul 9, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Batcat
> Same old election loss crap.  Grow up.  It's over and you.lost.


Did you bitch at people who said Trump colluded with Putin and therefore won the Presidential Election and prevented Hillary from being our first female President?


----------



## Colin norris (Jul 9, 2021)

Batcat 
No.  Did you?


----------



## Batcat (Jul 9, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> No. Did you?


Yes.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jul 9, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> We all seem to think our constitutional rights are etched in stone and cannot be violated. In fact they are at the whim of politicians who can justify taking them away with a stroke of the pen. George Carlin had an opinion on that..you think your rights are inviolate. He said if you do just go to Wikipedia and in the search box type in..Japanese-Americans 1942


You must be right, Brah.

The sooner we can get rid of that troublesome doctrine, the sooner you can criminalize anything that opposes your agenda.


----------



## dblack (Jul 9, 2021)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Ben Thomson said:
> 
> 
> > We all seem to think our constitutional rights are etched in stone and cannot be violated. In fact they are at the whim of politicians who can justify taking them away with a stroke of the pen. George Carlin had an opinion on that..you think your rights are inviolate. He said if you do just go to Wikipedia and in the search box type in..Japanese-Americans 1942
> ...


And then liberal democracy will be UNSTOPPABLE!!!!!  Muhahaha!!!


----------



## Esdraelon (Jul 11, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Ben Thomson said:
> ...


Do you agree that voters shouldn't have to request ballots by mail?  How do you feel about the idea of all voters having to prove their identity before their vote is counted?


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 19, 2021)

Skylar said:


> The logic of unalienable rights is that they are unalienable. They wouldn't need to be 'given' by a constitution. Which is why they were cited by the founders before there was a constitution.


Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Thomas Jefferson


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 19, 2021)

Gabe Lackmann said:


> The courts are corrupt, and compromised. You have no rights. They can, have, and will take everything away from you. Not one Amendment in those first ten has not been widdled down to nothing.
> You have no rights. You are a slave.


Only because (mostly) right-wingers are so clueless and Causeless.  UnConstitutional laws need to be challenged.  In my opinion, attorneys (on AVVO) are just as guilty if not more guilty for censoring Constitutional questions like overpaid Process Services than they are at thoughtful "dissertations" like doctors at law concerning rational reasoning of Constitutional law.


----------



## Gabe Lackmann (Jul 19, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Only because (mostly) right-wingers are so clueless and Causeless.  UnConstitutional laws need to be challenged.  In my opinion, attorneys (on AVVO) are just as guilty if not more guilty for censoring Constitutional questions like overpaid Process Services than they are at thoughtful "dissertations" like doctors at law concerning rational reasoning of Constitutional law.


The fuck with your left side right side faggotry. Don't bring those bullshit lies to me man.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 19, 2021)

Gabe Lackmann said:


> The fuck with your left side right side faggotry. Don't bring those bullshit lies to me man.


lol.  You would not understand the "gospel Truth" if someone tried to argue it with you.


----------



## Gabe Lackmann (Jul 19, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> lol.  You would not understand the "gospel Truth" if someone tried to argue it with you.


go fuck yourself dont talk to me.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 19, 2021)

Gabe Lackmann said:


> go fuck yourself dont talk to me.


You first, right-winger.


----------



## dblack (Jul 19, 2021)

Batcat said:


> Did you bitch at people who said Trump colluded with Putin and therefore won the Presidential Election and prevented Hillary from being our first female President?


I did. But they didn't listen either. Delusion is an attractive escape hatch.


----------



## Ringtone (Jul 19, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> We all seem to think our constitutional rights are etched in stone and cannot be violated. In fact they are at the whim of politicians who can justify taking them away with a stroke of the pen. George Carlin had an opinion on that..you think your rights are inviolate. He said if you do just go to Wikipedia and in the search box type in..Japanese-Americans 1942


What a silly thing to say.  Of course the inherent rights of natural law can be suppressed or violated. Dummy.  And tyranny is never justifiable.  In this context, the term _inviolate_ simply means that these rights are not granted or taken by the state.  They can only be suppressed or violated by the state.  Period.  The possession of them, the right to them, does not cease to exist when they are suppressed or violated by force.  Enslaving humans does not cease to be a crime against humanity just because someone commits it.  Enslavement does not magically become not-enslavement, you idiot.  _X = X._


----------



## Batcat (Jul 20, 2021)

dblack said:


> I did. But they didn't listen either. Delusion is an attractive escape hatch.


I agree. It’s  great fun rattling democrats cages by claiming they rigged the election. It’s called payback.

The biggest problem with that approach is it is beginning to look like the dems actually did rig the election. If that is ever proven beyond a doubt it’s my bet this nation will be in serious trouble.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (Jul 20, 2021)

> 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,


The "unalienable Rights" are described in the Declaration of Independence, which is the foundation of American values.

The Constitution is the organization of the government that is instituted among men to indirectly secure the unalienable Rights. The Constitution offers a mission statement in the Preamble.


> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Currently, the governing system is having difficulty approaching Justice and Domestic Tranquility. The federal government is not instituted to directly secure the unalienable rights - the states are supposed to do that.


----------

