"Government" is Not the Problem.

[AVG-JOE]

That's FUNNY!

The Constitution is the document that outlines and establishes the government!

So... if it outlines and establishes the government, how did the government somehow precede it?

It didn't. The government was established when enough people agreed to live by The Constitution and committed their spawn to live by it by ratifying it.

Okay, but now you are changing your position to that of Claudette. Did you think no one would notice that or something? Go back and read what was posted if you are confused. You claimed the Constitution was "permission from government" and Claudette corrected you by stating the Constitution came first. So not a damn thing in the Constitution can be "permission from the government" which didn't exist. The government was established by the Constitution, the Constitution was not established by government.

No I didn't.

I claimed that The Constitution is the ultimate representation of "The Government", and if you claim the Second Amendment as your right to keep guns in your house, you are taking advantage of one of the permissions offered by the government that is based on The Constitution.

The 2A does not grant permission by government to keep and bear arms. It says the government can't infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms. Big difference.

The Constitution was written to limit the power of government, not grant rights to the people.

Bullshit. The Constitution was written to describe the government - those limitations are simply a feature of the government that The Constitution describes.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The guns in your house are there because you have permission to have them from the government.

​

^ Low Information Voter

So is free speech then, amiright?

 

[gipper]

So... if it outlines and establishes the government, how did the government somehow precede it?

It didn't. The government was established when enough people agreed to live by The Constitution and committed their spawn to live by it by ratifying it.

Okay, but now you are changing your position to that of Claudette. Did you think no one would notice that or something? Go back and read what was posted if you are confused. You claimed the Constitution was "permission from government" and Claudette corrected you by stating the Constitution came first. So not a damn thing in the Constitution can be "permission from the government" which didn't exist. The government was established by the Constitution, the Constitution was not established by government.

No I didn't.

I claimed that The Constitution is the ultimate representation of "The Government", and if you claim the Second Amendment as your right to keep guns in your house, you are taking advantage of one of the permissions offered by the government that is based on The Constitution.

The 2A does not grant permission by government to keep and bear arms. It says the government can't infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms. Big difference.

The Constitution was written to limit the power of government, not grant rights to the people.

Bullshit. The Constitution was written to describe the government - those limitations are simply a feature of the government that The Constitution describes.

A distinction without a difference.

It is clear the founders wanted to limit the power of government...one of the fundamental aspects of the Constitution, is it limits government. The Bill of Rights is clearly limiting government, not granting rights to the people.

Yes...it also lays out how government is to be structured.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So your right to life is at the whim of the govt should they decide to revoke their "permission".......

\Thread

There's the problem, Progressives worship government like the most powerful Deity in the Universe

 

[jillian]

So your right to life is at the whim of the govt should they decide to revoke their "permission".......

you should probably read the dred scott and karematsu (and any decision on the death penalty) to answer that question.

rights exist only if they are enforced. no matter what philosophical construct is in your head or you pretend exists.

 

[jillian]

It didn't. The government was established when enough people agreed to live by The Constitution and committed their spawn to live by it by ratifying it.

Okay, but now you are changing your position to that of Claudette. Did you think no one would notice that or something? Go back and read what was posted if you are confused. You claimed the Constitution was "permission from government" and Claudette corrected you by stating the Constitution came first. So not a damn thing in the Constitution can be "permission from the government" which didn't exist. The government was established by the Constitution, the Constitution was not established by government.

No I didn't.

I claimed that The Constitution is the ultimate representation of "The Government", and if you claim the Second Amendment as your right to keep guns in your house, you are taking advantage of one of the permissions offered by the government that is based on The Constitution.

The 2A does not grant permission by government to keep and bear arms. It says the government can't infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms. Big difference.

The Constitution was written to limit the power of government, not grant rights to the people.

Bullshit. The Constitution was written to describe the government - those limitations are simply a feature of the government that The Constitution describes.

A distinction without a difference.

It is clear the founders wanted to limit the power of government...one of the fundamental aspects of the Constitution, is it limits government. The Bill of Rights is clearly limiting government, not granting rights to the people.

Yes...it also lays out how government is to be structured.

poor baby.... the "founders" wanted government to be far enough reaching to control interstate commerce and provide for the general welfare.

silly wabbit.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That's FUNNY!

The Constitution is the document that outlines and establishes the government!

So... if it outlines and establishes the government, how did the government somehow precede it?

It didn't. The government was established when enough people agreed to live by The Constitution and committed their spawn to live by it by ratifying it.

Okay, but now you are changing your position to that of Claudette. Did you think no one would notice that or something? Go back and read what was posted if you are confused. You claimed the Constitution was "permission from government" and Claudette corrected you by stating the Constitution came first. So not a damn thing in the Constitution can be "permission from the government" which didn't exist. The government was established by the Constitution, the Constitution was not established by government.

No I didn't.

I claimed that The Constitution is the ultimate representation of "The Government", and if you claim the Second Amendment as your right to keep guns in your house, you are taking advantage of one of the permissions offered by the government that is based on The Constitution.

The 2A does not grant permission by government to keep and bear arms. It says the government can't infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms. Big difference.

The Constitution was written to limit the power of government, not grant rights to the people.

Progressive, like the OP, were trained to believe that the government bestows all rights, even to life

 

[gipper]

Okay, but now you are changing your position to that of Claudette. Did you think no one would notice that or something? Go back and read what was posted if you are confused. You claimed the Constitution was "permission from government" and Claudette corrected you by stating the Constitution came first. So not a damn thing in the Constitution can be "permission from the government" which didn't exist. The government was established by the Constitution, the Constitution was not established by government.

No I didn't.

I claimed that The Constitution is the ultimate representation of "The Government", and if you claim the Second Amendment as your right to keep guns in your house, you are taking advantage of one of the permissions offered by the government that is based on The Constitution.

The 2A does not grant permission by government to keep and bear arms. It says the government can't infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms. Big difference.

The Constitution was written to limit the power of government, not grant rights to the people.

Bullshit. The Constitution was written to describe the government - those limitations are simply a feature of the government that The Constitution describes.

A distinction without a difference.

It is clear the founders wanted to limit the power of government...one of the fundamental aspects of the Constitution, is it limits government. The Bill of Rights is clearly limiting government, not granting rights to the people.

Yes...it also lays out how government is to be structured.

poor baby.... the "founders" wanted government to be far enough reaching to control interstate commerce and provide for the general welfare.

silly wabbit.

Oh Silly Jilly I know you are hurting due to our breakup. This may explain why you are making no sense.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So your right to life is at the whim of the govt should they decide to revoke their "permission".......

you should probably read the dred scott and karematsu (and any decision on the death penalty) to answer that question.

rights exist only if they are enforced. no matter what philosophical construct is in your head or you pretend exists.

Supporting Fascism is antithetical to our founding constructs, Dear. When dealing with Japanese Americans, FDR was every bit the Fascist as his compatriot in Germany. That FDR could bully SCOTUS into acquiescing to American Fascicm is not a thing you'd want to highlight as a sign of how well our government works

 

[Boss]

Bullshit. The Constitution was written to describe the government - those limitations are simply a feature of the government that The Constitution describes.

Man... it's something else to watch you try and spin this.

You're a LONG way from the 2nd Amendment being a permission granted by government, as you originally argued. Why not just say... hey, I was wrong... I misspoke... wasn't thinking straight... something like that would save your credibility. Instead, your pride causes you to dance around with convoluted reiterations and awkward phraseology trying to explain your way out of a boneheaded statement.

The 2nd Amendment outlines one of our several inalienable rights which are endowed by our Creator. It's not a permission granted by government.

 

[Boss]

poor baby.... the "founders" wanted government to be far enough reaching to control interstate commerce and provide for the general welfare.

You don't even know what "general welfare" is about in the Constitution.

 

[Rustic]

What IS The United States Constitution, if not a contract we are all agreeing to be governed by?



If your right to keep weapons in your house is based on the Second Amendment to The US Constitution, you have weapons because you have permission from "The Government".


Government is a tool. Monkey Business is the problem.

​

 

[Rustic]

 

[Rustic]

 

[Rustic]

 

[Rustic]

 

[Rustic]

 

[Rustic]

 

[Rustic]

 

[Mac1958]

I wonder what it means that the guy who started so much by saying "government is not the answer to our problems, government IS the problem" is the same guy who wouldn't be welcome in today's GOP because of his 80% rule.