"Government" is Not the Problem.

[Rustic]

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Thomas Jefferson

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

The Constitution was created to limit the power of Government and is what grants us the Right to Bear Arms. It is the Citizen of this country that can only change the Constitution by voting in Representatives at Federal and State level, so the ones that grant us the right to own our guns is not the government but we the people instead.

 

[JoeMoma]

And The Constitution is the contract under which we are governed. Permission from "the government".

I disagree. Its the Constitution that was written before we had a Govt. that allows us to keep and bear arms. The Govt. came later.

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.

Chicken......Egg

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

1. The Fascism of the 30’s was hardly new on the scene. In fact, by the 1920’s, American intellectuals, disappointed in what they perceived as the failures of classical liberalism allowed themselves to think that Fascism was the path toward their ideals, and the same path allowed them to stumble into Stalinism some time later. The jewels of the new thinking, according to these elites, was comprehensive state control, planning and direction, as long as the goals remained “a conscious, intelligent ordering of society,” as Columbia professor and disciple of John Dewey, Herbert W. Schneider stated.

a. American progressives, pragmatists, viewed Fascism’s emphasis on political repression as a regrettable but entirely understandable corollary.

2. Of course, today’s denials should remind one of Huey Long’s dictum: “When America gets Fascism it will call it anti-Fascism.”

a. “Fascism may be so gradual that most voters will not be aware of its existence. The true Fascist leaders will not be the present imitators of German Führer and Italian condottieri, prancing in silver shirts. They will be judicious, black-frocked gentlemen; graduates of the best universities;….” Waldo Frank, the social historian,1934. July | 2010 | Anantifederalist's Blog

 

[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.

No I didn't.

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

Nope. We have guns with the permission of the Constitution.

And The Constitution is the contract under which we are governed. Permission from "the government".

So did someone hack your account and post this, Joe?

The Constitution precedes the Government. How is the government giving ANY permission? The Constitution establishes the government at the same time it outlines our inalienable rights and government's enumerated powers.

Please point out how that post indicates in any way that I said that the government came before The Constitution.

I said that The Constitution IS the government.

 

[Boss]

Please point out how that post indicates in any way that I said that the government came before The Constitution.

I said that The Constitution IS the government.

You adamantly insisted it was the government who gave us permission to own firearms.

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

And The Constitution is the contract under which we are governed. Permission from "the government".

Now, you are still trying to wiggle around and make an incorrect point that you failed making the first time. NO... the Constitution is NOT the government. The Constitution established the government.

 

[Slade3200]

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

​

All of our rights come from God, not man.

Ergo, God wants us to own guns.

Yeah I totally think of Jesus when I see an AK-47 blasting down a village in Africa. All part of his plan I guess

 

[mgh80]

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

Our government (both gems and reps) have:

-Lied about WMDs in Iraq to get us into war
-Rounded up thousands and thousands of Japanese Americans and put them into interment camps
-Gulf of Tonkin
-Gave blacks STDs to conduct experiments on them
-Neglected to end the war in Iraq/Afghanistan when elected into Congress in 2006 (a decade ago)

And the list goes on and on and on

Why the hell should anybody trust them, and not consider them a "problem"?

 

[jillian]

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.

you wish.

but no doubt the rightwingnut blogosphere has made you think you know what you're talking about

 

[jillian]

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

​

All of our rights come from God, not man.

Ergo, God wants us to own guns.

Yeah I totally think of Jesus when I see an AK-47 blasting down a village in Africa. All part of his plan I guess

he's being sarcastic

 

[Rustic]

 

[Rustic]

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.

you wish.

but no doubt the rightwingnut blogosphere has made you think you know what you're talking about

 

[jillian]

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.

you wish.

but no doubt the rightwingnut blogosphere has made you think you know what you're talking about

nice waste of bandwidth, idiota.

but you are aware that the "founding fathers" disagreed among themselves, aren't you, dum dum?

 

[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.

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

1. The Fascism of the 30’s was hardly new on the scene. In fact, by the 1920’s, American intellectuals, disappointed in what they perceived as the failures of classical liberalism allowed themselves to think that Fascism was the path toward their ideals, and the same path allowed them to stumble into Stalinism some time later. The jewels of the new thinking, according to these elites, was comprehensive state control, planning and direction, as long as the goals remained “a conscious, intelligent ordering of society,” as Columbia professor and disciple of John Dewey, Herbert W. Schneider stated.

a. American progressives, pragmatists, viewed Fascism’s emphasis on political repression as a regrettable but entirely understandable corollary.

2. Of course, today’s denials should remind one of Huey Long’s dictum: “When America gets Fascism it will call it anti-Fascism.”

a. “Fascism may be so gradual that most voters will not be aware of its existence. The true Fascist leaders will not be the present imitators of German Führer and Italian condottieri, prancing in silver shirts. They will be judicious, black-frocked gentlemen; graduates of the best universities;….” Waldo Frank, the social historian,1934. July | 2010 | Anantifederalist's Blog

more ignorant cut and paste

 

[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.

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

if you're concerned about fascism, you probably shouldn't vote for trump.

 

[Rustic]

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.

you wish.

but no doubt the rightwingnut blogosphere has made you think you know what you're talking about

nice waste of bandwidth, idiota.

but you are aware that the "founding fathers" disagreed among themselves, aren't you, dum dum?

 

[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.

you wish.

but no doubt the rightwingnut blogosphere has made you think you know what you're talking about

I think MY information predates blogospheres. That's actually where your understanding comes from.

Here's an excerpt from Federalist 41 explaining the general welfare clause:

It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare. "But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. " The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever.

But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation! ~James Madison

Now, I realize this is probably a lot to read and it's fairly difficult reading because it's old English and hard to follow.... but TRY. Madison is going to great lengths to explain "general welfare" doesn't mean what the modern progressive thinks it means. Not only does he state it doesn't mean that, he indicates it is preposterous to construe it that way. It is nothing more than a summarizing statement referring to the aforementioned enumerated powers of government. Rather than to list all of them again, they are referred to as "the general welfare."

 

[AVG-JOE]

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

Our government (both gems and reps) have:

-Lied about WMDs in Iraq to get us into war
-Rounded up thousands and thousands of Japanese Americans and put them into interment camps
-Gulf of Tonkin
-Gave blacks STDs to conduct experiments on them
-Neglected to end the war in Iraq/Afghanistan when elected into Congress in 2006 (a decade ago)

And the list goes on and on and on

Why the hell should anybody trust them, and not consider them a "problem"?

"Them" refers to the people involved... not the document that we have all agreed to be governed by.

Big difference. Huge.

 

[OKTexas]

Why not?

The Constitution of TX.

That's amazing. Well congrats to you for being one of the few free property owners in this land!

Thanks, but there's probably millions of us in my State.

I own a house in your state... Paid thousands in taxes. Forgive me if I don't believe you

Check the State Constitution on 100% disabled vets and their spouses. We are exempt from property taxes.

So it's not a "Freedom" thing... It's a "dependent-on-the-state entitlement" thing.

I can work with that...

No it's a State honoring its vets thing ignorant ass.

 

[gipper]

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

if you're concerned about fascism, you probably shouldn't vote for trump.

Yeah cause we all know Hillary is all about the Constitution, limited government, and the rule of law...right Silly Jilly?