"Government" is Not the Problem.

[whitehall]

That's the trouble with liberals. They think freedom comes from the government instead of the other way around.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

I agree... To promote entails providing something... What that something is should be determined by our elected leaders

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

`​

You should go argue with the idiot who wrote the OP, he thinks the government bestows rights upon us

 

[jillian]

++

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.

I agree... To promote entails providing something... What that something is should be determined by our elected leaders

exactly. bur for some reason, our rightleaners seem to resent anything that does provide for the general welfare.

 

[jillian]

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.

`​

You should go argue with the idiot who wrote the OP, he thinks the government bestows rights upon us

you seem to be confusing political philosophy with reality.

on the reality, you might want to speak with any surviving second generation Japanese Americas who were alive in the 1940's.

 

[Slade3200]

++

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.

I agree... To promote entails providing something... What that something is should be determined by our elected leaders

exactly. bur for some reason, our rightleaners seem to resent anything that does provide for the general welfare.

They just see the word "welfare" and freak out

 

[jillian]

++

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.

I agree... To promote entails providing something... What that something is should be determined by our elected leaders

exactly. bur for some reason, our rightleaners seem to resent anything that does provide for the general welfare.

They just see the word "welfare" and freak out

agreed. seems odd to me.

 

[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.

True! The Constitution WAS written to limit the government... but that's only half of it!

More important than the limitations imposed, The Constitution also outlines what our government should look like and what we should expect from it, such as protecting our permission to have deadly weapons.

 

[g5000]

More important than the limitations imposed, The Constitution also outlines what our government should look like, what we should expect from it, such as protecting our permission to have deadly weapons.

Hey dummy.

It doesn't say "permission". It says "right".

Idiot.

 

[g5000]

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

​

​

The midget porn in your house is there because you have permission to have it from the government.


The speech you make against Trump is because you have permission to say it from the government.


See how unbelievably ignorant you sound, dumbass?

 

[S.J.]

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.

I agree... To promote entails providing something... What that something is should be determined by our elected leaders

Wrong. Follow the law, not the twisting of meaning by politicians.
the definition of promote
the definition of provide

 

[jillian]

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.

I agree... To promote entails providing something... What that something is should be determined by our elected leaders

Wrong. Follow the law, not the twisting of meaning by politicians.
the definition of promote
the definition of provide

poor baby.... look at the caselaw.

 

[easyt65]

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

​

Not THIS government...

 

[S.J.]

++

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.

I agree... To promote entails providing something... What that something is should be determined by our elected leaders

exactly. bur for some reason, our rightleaners seem to resent anything that does provide for the general welfare.

We resent politicians who think they can change the Constitution at will and interpret it to mean something it does not.

 

[Divine Wind]

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

You've got it bassackwards, which is typical of all authoritarians, be they left or right.

The Constitution is a limitation on those governing not We, the People.

 

[jillian]

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

You've got it bassackwards, which is typical of all authoritarians, be they left or right.

The Constitution is a limitation on those governing not We, the People.

only in part.

it's also an expansion of rights.... but not for states... for individuals.

if they wanted government to be as limited as rightwingnuts pretend, we'd still be using the articles of confederation.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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.

Again... That's not what happened. The 10th Amendment was never repealed. Article V certainly wasn't repealed, nor was it the basis for secession during the Civil War. What kind of Liberal koolaid vat did you get your American History education from dude?

And yet the practicality of the matter remains that, because of the precedent established by the Republican victory in The American Civil War, the states are subject, in whole, to the federal government.

You don't know what you're talking about. The Civil War did no such thing. We had passage and ratification of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. None of those surrender state sovereignty over to federal government or repeal any part of the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

And yet the practicality of the matter is a micro management from DC by congress of all the states voting laws and abortion laws, among other things.

I understand why a young political party calling themselves 'Republicans' won The Civil War.... even the Founders knew that Americans were not going to be living up to the ideals laid out in The United States Constitution and living in the freedom that the document describes in their grandchildren's lifetimes, hence their compromise on slavery to begin with. To this day it's pretty obvious that some of the states still would treat portions of their populations unfairly if they could. Funnier still is what The Republican ideal morphed into in such a short period of Time.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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.

How did the government offer me a permission when it didn't yet exist?

You've been creepin' around since the late 1700's?!?

Actually... That explains a lot.

`​

 

[Slade3200]

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.

The government also has the right to define and regulate what "arms" are... Correct?

 

[Divine Wind]

only in part.

it's also an expansion of rights.... but not for states... for individuals.

if they wanted government to be as limited as rightwingnuts pretend, we'd still be using the articles of confederation.

Disagreed. We, the People already have all of our rights. What we need is a better understanding of where one person's right to swing their fist interferes with another person's rights.

You can hate anyone who disagrees with you and insult them all you like but the fact remains the Constitution limits government, not We, the People.

What the Constitution Does
The founding fathers established the Constitution to do just two things:

1. Establish a federal government for the United States of America
2. Delegate to the federal government certain, limited (and enumerated) powers.