"Government" is Not the Problem.

[OKTexas]

I sorry you are so ignorant of history, at that time the States ruled their own territory and ran their own militias, they had a pretty loose confederation at the time, but each State was sovereign and still are with the exception of the limited powers they ceded to the feds. Why do you think the States can change the Constitution at will with no involvement from the feds?

I get it, was still written by the governing powers.

Not a central government. You DON'T get it.

I do get it... It was a government made up of the states and they expanded to a central government... Either way the ones that control and govern are the people made the laws. Brilliant document they created btw. Why are we even arguing over this?

Because the idiot you’re arguing with is functioning under the wrongheaded notion that the states have ‘more power’ than the Federal government, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

And don’t bother citing Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution, like most on the right he’ll ignore it and remain willfully ignorant.

No, it's article 5 that proves you wrong, it gives the States the power to change or abolish the federal government at will, without any federal involvement, the States having such power says they are the sovereigns, not the feds.

And then, when some states tried it in the mid 1800's, The Republican Party was born to call 'bullshit' on that concept at the point of a gun, establishing once and for all the dominance and sovereignty of the federal government.

Sure, keep telling yourself that. All you proved was Lincoln was a criminal, but the States could easily strip the feds of powers today using article 5 and the military would back them.

 

[OKTexas]

You all are funny, your freedom is an illusion only permissible by the government. Luckily it is a fluid group of elected officials with checks and balances rather than a ruling dictator, king or family. But make no mistake, you rent the land you live on from the Gov. You rent the right to do business and commerce with the governments dollars, and you rent the right to live free as long as you abide by their contract (laws)... Don't believe me, go break the laws... don't pay your income, business, or property taxes... See what happens

I don't have any property taxes.

Apparently you DO have property taxes, they are just being paid on your behalf by The People of The State of Texas as an entitlement you earned through your military service.

There is a difference.

No the majority of state revenue comes from sales taxes, not property taxes. Most of the property taxes goes to the counties, schools and special taxing districts, like hospital districts.

 

[OKTexas]

You all are funny, your freedom is an illusion only permissible by the government. Luckily it is a fluid group of elected officials with checks and balances rather than a ruling dictator, king or family. But make no mistake, you rent the land you live on from the Gov. You rent the right to do business and commerce with the governments dollars, and you rent the right to live free as long as you abide by their contract (laws)... Don't believe me, go break the laws... don't pay your income, business, or property taxes... See what happens

I don't have any property taxes.

Good for you

Forgot to say, I do own property. No mortgage, no taxes. So tell me, am I still renting from the government?

Yes. In a manner of speaking... if the government goes away and takes with it the benefits that you receive through The VA and other agencies, you are going to go hungry.

Beyond 'renting from the government', you are dependent on the government.

It may be an entitlement that you earned through your military service, but that doesn't lessen the dependency part of the relationship.

So your another idiot who confuses the ability to do something with the likelihood of it actually being done. An article 5 convention will probably happen within the next few years with the States exerting more power and reining in federal over reach. I don't think anyone is interested in killing the beast, just putting it back in its cage.

 

[S.J.]

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.

"PROMOTE" the general welfare, stupid. Not "provide".

 

[jillian]

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.

"PROMOTE" the general welfare, stupid. Not "provide".

last I checked promoting the general welfare doesn't include letting children starve to death.

distinction without a difference.

 

[S.J.]

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.

"PROMOTE" the general welfare, stupid. Not "provide".

last I checked promoting the general welfare doesn't include letting children starve to death.

distinction without a difference.

Can't you just admit you don't know the difference?

 

[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

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

What's the worst Trump can do, use the IRS and NSA to harass and spy on this "enemies" (aka: Progressives)

Oh, wait, your guy is already there

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

"PROMOTE" the general welfare, stupid. Not "provide".

last I checked promoting the general welfare doesn't include letting children starve to death.

distinction without a difference.

Vote Hilly or children will starve.

Hmmmkay

 

[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

more ignorant cut and paste

Meaning what....you didn't read it....

....or you couldn't deny it?

 

[Slade3200]

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.

"PROMOTE" the general welfare, stupid. Not "provide".

last I checked promoting the general welfare doesn't include letting children starve to death.

distinction without a difference.

Can't you just admit you don't know the difference?

This one likes to play little word games... Don't dig to deep it gets exhausting

 

[jillian]

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.

"PROMOTE" the general welfare, stupid. Not "provide".

last I checked promoting the general welfare doesn't include letting children starve to death.

distinction without a difference.

Can't you just admit you don't know the difference?

This one likes to play little word games... Don't dig to deep it gets exhausting

you mean SJ? yeah, I know.

but, for the record, the court parses words, too.

 

[Slade3200]

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

silly wabbit.

"PROMOTE" the general welfare, stupid. Not "provide".

last I checked promoting the general welfare doesn't include letting children starve to death.

distinction without a difference.

Can't you just admit you don't know the difference?

This one likes to play little word games... Don't dig to deep it gets exhausting

you mean SJ? yeah, I know.

but, for the record, the court parses words, too.

Which is totally valid when making a legal argument... If thats what you two were doing then I retract my statement. I thought this was more of an ideological/moral argument, where the word games get real old.

 

[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

Meaning what....you didn't read it....

....or you couldn't deny it?

you have trouble reading English?

here.... let me help. you post cut and paste garbage.

and you're a waste of time.

did you realty need to start that discussion? you don't look stupid enough?

 

[AVG-JOE]

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".

The Governing Contract.

Government of The People, by The People and for The People.


If y'all really want to know who all y'all ultimately get permission to keep guns in your houses from, it's all y'all.


We, The Peeps.


Ultimately I'm trusting every American who owns guns not to allow them to be used in an inappropriate manner, and y'all are all trusting me to keep the 9 mm that I carry most of the time safely concealed under my shirt, unless I truly believe that I'm involved in a situation that calls for a good guy with a gun.

`​

 

[AVG-JOE]

I hope that the day never comes when I feel like my life depends on a good guy with a gun being there, and I really hope that if that day ever comes none of y'all mistake me for a bad guy with a gun and shoot me down.

I have permission to carry a weapon from The People of The Great State of Florida, and it's a responsibility that I wish I had more time to train for both in judgement and in skill. I've found that handling handguns is a fun and challenging activity.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I want to thank the rest of you Monkeys for both your trust and your permission to keep the weapons that I keep.

Y'all Rock!

Happy Birthday, America!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

Meaning what....you didn't read it....

....or you couldn't deny it?

you have trouble reading English?

here.... let me help. you post cut and paste garbage.

and you're a waste of time.

did you realty need to start that discussion? you don't look stupid enough?

You can run, but you can't hide.

Your'e a dunce....but I bet everyone tells you that.



...you didn't read it....

....or you couldn't deny it?

 

[jillian]

"PROMOTE" the general welfare, stupid. Not "provide".

last I checked promoting the general welfare doesn't include letting children starve to death.

distinction without a difference.

Can't you just admit you don't know the difference?

This one likes to play little word games... Don't dig to deep it gets exhausting

you mean SJ? yeah, I know.

but, for the record, the court parses words, too.

Which is total valid when making a legal argument... If thats what you two were doing then I retract my statement. I thought this was more of an ideological/moral argument, where the word games get real old.

he was claiming that the legislature is not charged with the providing for the general welfare of the citizenry and claims some distinction based upon the word "promote" as used in the constitution.

given the caselaw, (however limited on the subject of the general welfare clause) I pointed out it was a distinction without a difference.

 

[norwegen]

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.

​

The Constitution is not an instrument we agreed to be governed by. It's an instrument we agreed to govern the government by.

Our right to keep and bear arms is not because of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment issued from our right to keep and bear arms.

 

[g5000]

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.

​

Nope. You have it completely backwards.

The Constitution is acknowledgement that you have the right to own guns. The government will have permission to exist from us as long as it continues to acknowledges our rights.