Governments do not protect rights

[FA_Q2]

I have to admit QW, you are way off base with this one. Your OP really has 2 different parts that I have to separate to respond:

I get accused of living in a fantasy world because I insist that governments do not provide, nor do they protect, our rights.

I would agree that they do not confer out rights but I disagree in that they certainly do protect those rights.

I hereby issue an open challenge that trusts the government to protect our rights. This should be really easy for you, all you have to do is show me a single example of a government that consistently protects the rights of the people who are under its protection.

Then you use the above qualifier. This entire thread you have been pointing out single, narrow examples is an effort (I assume) to show that the US fails in the consistency part of the challenge. I find that disingenuous. As has already pointed out (and accepted) governments are simply not infallible. Mistakes will be made and that is what you are pointing out. Errors where the government has failed in its duty. The vast majority of the time however, the government is in fact protecting your various rights. All you really have to do to understand this is look at other countries that operate for all intents and purposes as anarchies. Do you believe that those places where there is a distinct lack of government (as much as government can be lacking because there is never truly a complete lack of one) that your rights are better protected? I would challenge you to show how such places practice a greater degree of freedom because I assure you that such is not true.

Government may not be good at protecting our rights. It may not get it right all the time. It makes some terrible mistakes. It even tends to slide in the exact opposite direction, leaning to oppression over time but our government does, at least at this juncture, protect our rights. It is really the only purpose government has to start with. As has already been pointed out as well, government is not the sole protector of our rights though and just as much if not more of that duty falls to the individual.

 

[FA_Q2]

By taking up arms against the state they would have criminalized themselves. Furthermore they had families whose lives they would be placing at risk. Not every human rights abuse can be defeated by resorting to violence.

REALLY!!!
So, defending yourself is a terrible idea then. Instead, you should meekly walk into those showers. You are a fucking disgusting piece of filth.

 

[FA_Q2]

So the Defense of Marriage Act was a step towards tyranny? Universal background checks for all gun purchases would be a step away from tyranny. So is lifting the income cap on Social Security. Eliminating tax exemptions for religious organizations would be another step away from tyranny. Do you have a published manifesto for this utopian egalitarian society of yours? Or are you just plagiarizing Karl Marx?

Feel free to point out where I have defended DOMA.

While you are at it, feel free to point out where I said that the only way to get to tyranny is to make laws apply to different people differently.

Are you now denying that you made this statement?

My point was, and is, that any law that treats one group of people differently than another is a step toward tyranny, go back and read it if you don't believe me.

You were provided with a set of laws that treat people differently and others that won't. Instead of embracing what you claim to believe you are now competing for the gold in the backpedaling olympics.

*sigh*
He has not back peddled one iota and it seems you have a serious problem with simple reading comprehension. I am only replying to this because the circular bullshit is getting old and detraction from what otherwise could be a good debate. He stated that ‘any law that treats one group of people differently than another is a step toward tyranny’ and in this instance it was applied to Feinstein’s law. It is tyrannical because cops, when they are private citizens NOT performing their duty (all those ‘nuke’ arguments are now moot) they are held to a different standard than other citizens. That creates a situation where a favored group get access to things that other people do not have access to while they are normal citizens. That is easily identified as oppressive.

Further, because favoring one group over another is NOT the ONLY way to push tyrannical policies, laws that treat all people equally like the universal background checks could STILL be tyrannical for other reasons, such as using such a law to track ownership with a registry (the only way that law is enforceable).

Further, you have still failed to provide an actual point to this rambling about gun control. BTW, gun control is not the point of the thread. How about you tie this back to the OP.

 

[NYcarbineer]

My point was, and is, that any law that treats one group of people differently than another is a step toward tyranny, go back and read it if you don't believe me. After you do that we might be able to discuss whatever the fuck point you are trying to make, if you figure out how to articulate based on what I am saying, instead of basing it on your delusions.

So the Defense of Marriage Act was a step towards tyranny? Universal background checks for all gun purchases would be a step away from tyranny. So is lifting the income cap on Social Security. Eliminating tax exemptions for religious organizations would be another step away from tyranny. Do you have a published manifesto for this utopian egalitarian society of yours? Or are you just plagiarizing Karl Marx?

Feel free to point out where I have defended DOMA.

While you are at it, feel free to point out where I said that the only way to get to tyranny is to make laws apply to different people differently.

He never accuses you of that. You're once again deflecting because you've been put in the uncomfortable position of being shown that you don't even believe your own assertion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Feel free to point out where I have defended DOMA.

While you are at it, feel free to point out where I said that the only way to get to tyranny is to make laws apply to different people differently.

Are you now denying that you made this statement?

My point was, and is, that any law that treats one group of people differently than another is a step toward tyranny, go back and read it if you don't believe me.

You were provided with a set of laws that treat people differently and others that won't. Instead of embracing what you claim to believe you are now competing for the gold in the backpedaling olympics.

*sigh*
He has not back peddled one iota and it seems you have a serious problem with simple reading comprehension. I am only replying to this because the circular bullshit is getting old and detraction from what otherwise could be a good debate. He stated that ‘any law that treats one group of people differently than another is a step toward tyranny’ and in this instance it was applied to Feinstein’s law. It is tyrannical because cops, when they are private citizens NOT performing their duty (all those ‘nuke’ arguments are now moot) they are held to a different standard than other citizens. That creates a situation where a favored group get access to things that other people do not have access to while they are normal citizens. That is easily identified as oppressive.

Further, because favoring one group over another is NOT the ONLY way to push tyrannical policies, laws that treat all people equally like the universal background checks could STILL be tyrannical for other reasons, such as using such a law to track ownership with a registry (the only way that law is enforceable).

Further, you have still failed to provide an actual point to this rambling about gun control. BTW, gun control is not the point of the thread. How about you tie this back to the OP.

Guns should be tracked in a registry. It's no violation of the 2nd amendment to require guns to be registered.

 

[Redfish]

Are you now denying that you made this statement?



You were provided with a set of laws that treat people differently and others that won't. Instead of embracing what you claim to believe you are now competing for the gold in the backpedaling olympics.

*sigh*
He has not back peddled one iota and it seems you have a serious problem with simple reading comprehension. I am only replying to this because the circular bullshit is getting old and detraction from what otherwise could be a good debate. He stated that ‘any law that treats one group of people differently than another is a step toward tyranny’ and in this instance it was applied to Feinstein’s law. It is tyrannical because cops, when they are private citizens NOT performing their duty (all those ‘nuke’ arguments are now moot) they are held to a different standard than other citizens. That creates a situation where a favored group get access to things that other people do not have access to while they are normal citizens. That is easily identified as oppressive.

Further, because favoring one group over another is NOT the ONLY way to push tyrannical policies, laws that treat all people equally like the universal background checks could STILL be tyrannical for other reasons, such as using such a law to track ownership with a registry (the only way that law is enforceable).

Further, you have still failed to provide an actual point to this rambling about gun control. BTW, gun control is not the point of the thread. How about you tie this back to the OP.

Guns should be tracked in a registry. It's no violation of the 2nd amendment to require guns to be registered.

laws already exist that require registration of guns. Do you think that criminals will comply with those laws?

 

[NYcarbineer]

*sigh*
He has not back peddled one iota and it seems you have a serious problem with simple reading comprehension. I am only replying to this because the circular bullshit is getting old and detraction from what otherwise could be a good debate. He stated that ‘any law that treats one group of people differently than another is a step toward tyranny’ and in this instance it was applied to Feinstein’s law. It is tyrannical because cops, when they are private citizens NOT performing their duty (all those ‘nuke’ arguments are now moot) they are held to a different standard than other citizens. That creates a situation where a favored group get access to things that other people do not have access to while they are normal citizens. That is easily identified as oppressive.

Further, because favoring one group over another is NOT the ONLY way to push tyrannical policies, laws that treat all people equally like the universal background checks could STILL be tyrannical for other reasons, such as using such a law to track ownership with a registry (the only way that law is enforceable).

Further, you have still failed to provide an actual point to this rambling about gun control. BTW, gun control is not the point of the thread. How about you tie this back to the OP.

Guns should be tracked in a registry. It's no violation of the 2nd amendment to require guns to be registered.

laws already exist that require registration of guns. Do you think that criminals will comply with those laws?

Is that your argument for not registering guns? That laws are broken by criminals?

Is that an argument for not making child molesting illegal?

 

[Redfish]

Guns should be tracked in a registry. It's no violation of the 2nd amendment to require guns to be registered.

laws already exist that require registration of guns. Do you think that criminals will comply with those laws?

Is that your argument for not registering guns? That laws are broken by criminals?

Is that an argument for not making child molesting illegal?

No, my point is that gun registration laws already exist. we don't need more registration laws, we already have them.

But, criminals will always find ways to get guns regardless of what laws we put on the books. I have no problem with registering guns, we already do that.

 

[Old Rocks]

I get accused of living in a fantasy world because I insist that governments do not provide, nor do they protect, our rights. Let me show you what hapens when the government sets out to protect us.

Hitler Survivor Condemns Gun Control 'KEEP YOUR GUNS, BUY MORE GUNS' - Katie Worthman - YouTube

I hereby issue an open challenge that trusts the government to protect our rights. This should be really easy for you, all you have to do is show me a single example of a government that consistently protects the rights of the people who are under its protection. Before anyone starts by positing to the USA I want to point out the Japanese Internment camps, Jim Crow laws, and the PATRIOT Act, all of which existed in the last 100 years.

so full of shit!

So those nations which essentially have no government are bastions of freedom, correct? The problem for really stupid ideological stances is reality.

 

[Seawytch]

you are correct of course. thats why I continue to challenge the LGBT members on this forum when they claim that they have "a fundamental right" to gay marriage.

NO, they don't. the only rights any of us have are the rights granted by society in general. The language in the constitution sets up judeo/christian principles as the basis for our rights

It's not us that claim it, it's the Supreme Court that stated it...on at least three occasions.

Loving v Virginia (1967) - You're familiar with that one, I'm sure. Are you familiar with how society felt about interracial marriage at the time? Are you aware that society didn't approve of these relationships by a majority until the 1990s? Are you also aware that those who were opposed to these relationships tried to use "Judeo/Christian principles" to keep anti-miscegenation laws in place? (A JUDGE even tried....seriously, tried to use the bible to justify keeping races separate) Again, you know how that turned out.

Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978) - This one was about Wisconsin requiring people with previous marriages to prove they could financially support both their previous and future spouse before they could get married. The SCOTUS stated that marriage was "a fundamental right".

Turner v Safley (1987) - This one was about a Missouri law prohibiting convicts from marrying. The SCOTUS did not find it "reasonable".

(BTW, you can Wiki all of these cases if you don't believe my summation of them)

So, when "the gheys" talk about there being a fundamental right to marriage, it's because there is...as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States whose job it is to sort this kind of thing out.

Now, the current challenge is to whether this fundamental right applies to gay and lesbian couples. Those that do not wish to extend this fundamental right to gay and lesbian couples, must come up with a compelling state reason to deny them. They must be able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing them.

Can you?

 

[Redfish]

you are correct of course. thats why I continue to challenge the LGBT members on this forum when they claim that they have "a fundamental right" to gay marriage.

NO, they don't. the only rights any of us have are the rights granted by society in general. The language in the constitution sets up judeo/christian principles as the basis for our rights

It's not us that claim it, it's the Supreme Court that stated it...on at least three occasions.

Loving v Virginia (1967) - You're familiar with that one, I'm sure. Are you familiar with how society felt about interracial marriage at the time? Are you aware that society didn't approve of these relationships by a majority until the 1990s? Are you also aware that those who were opposed to these relationships tried to use "Judeo/Christian principles" to keep anti-miscegenation laws in place? (A JUDGE even tried....seriously, tried to use the bible to justify keeping races separate) Again, you know how that turned out.

Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978) - This one was about Wisconsin requiring people with previous marriages to prove they could financially support both their previous and future spouse before they could get married. The SCOTUS stated that marriage was "a fundamental right".

Turner v Safley (1987) - This one was about a Missouri law prohibiting convicts from marrying. The SCOTUS did not find it "reasonable".

(BTW, you can Wiki all of these cases if you don't believe my summation of them)

So, when "the gheys" talk about there being a fundamental right to marriage, it's because there is...as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States whose job it is to sort this kind of thing out.

Now, the current challenge is to whether this fundamental right applies to gay and lesbian couples. Those that do not wish to extend this fundamental right to gay and lesbian couples, must come up with a compelling state reason to deny them. They must be able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing them.

Can you?

In almost every state where it has been put to a vote of the people, gay marriage has been defeated, even in the left wing state of california--twice.

The people should decide these things by a majority vote. I am perfectly willing to accept the vote of the majority, are you?

 

[Katzndogz]

The majority is illiterate and unknowledgeable. The majority just wants to be let alone. If the vote was to get gays to shut up, that's what they'd vote for. The mistake is in thinking that same sex marriage will shut them up.

 

[FA_Q2]

Guns should be tracked in a registry. It's no violation of the 2nd amendment to require guns to be registered.

And that assertion is utterly meaningless to this debate. Debate that in a gun legislation thread. The examples given were simply demonstrations of where his logic was failing in relation to the quoted posts.

 

[Seawytch]

you are correct of course. thats why I continue to challenge the LGBT members on this forum when they claim that they have "a fundamental right" to gay marriage.

NO, they don't. the only rights any of us have are the rights granted by society in general. The language in the constitution sets up judeo/christian principles as the basis for our rights

It's not us that claim it, it's the Supreme Court that stated it...on at least three occasions.

Loving v Virginia (1967) - You're familiar with that one, I'm sure. Are you familiar with how society felt about interracial marriage at the time? Are you aware that society didn't approve of these relationships by a majority until the 1990s? Are you also aware that those who were opposed to these relationships tried to use "Judeo/Christian principles" to keep anti-miscegenation laws in place? (A JUDGE even tried....seriously, tried to use the bible to justify keeping races separate) Again, you know how that turned out.

Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978) - This one was about Wisconsin requiring people with previous marriages to prove they could financially support both their previous and future spouse before they could get married. The SCOTUS stated that marriage was "a fundamental right".

Turner v Safley (1987) - This one was about a Missouri law prohibiting convicts from marrying. The SCOTUS did not find it "reasonable".

(BTW, you can Wiki all of these cases if you don't believe my summation of them)

So, when "the gheys" talk about there being a fundamental right to marriage, it's because there is...as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States whose job it is to sort this kind of thing out.

Now, the current challenge is to whether this fundamental right applies to gay and lesbian couples. Those that do not wish to extend this fundamental right to gay and lesbian couples, must come up with a compelling state reason to deny them. They must be able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing them.

Can you?

In almost every state where it has been put to a vote of the people, gay marriage has been defeated, even in the left wing state of california--twice.

The people should decide these things by a majority vote. I am perfectly willing to accept the vote of the majority, are you?

You missed the point entirely didn't you? Do you really expect me to answer your question without you first answering mine?

I do not believe that Civil Rights should EVER be put to a majority vote and I'll give you pictures as to why. Now, you know that Loving v Virginia was decided in 1967. Do you know when it would have passed if put to a majority vote?

See where it passes the majority threshold? 1994...27 years after the SCOTUS ruled on it. Should that have been put to a majority vote, yes or no?

 

[Redfish]

It's not us that claim it, it's the Supreme Court that stated it...on at least three occasions.

Loving v Virginia (1967) - You're familiar with that one, I'm sure. Are you familiar with how society felt about interracial marriage at the time? Are you aware that society didn't approve of these relationships by a majority until the 1990s? Are you also aware that those who were opposed to these relationships tried to use "Judeo/Christian principles" to keep anti-miscegenation laws in place? (A JUDGE even tried....seriously, tried to use the bible to justify keeping races separate) Again, you know how that turned out.

Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978) - This one was about Wisconsin requiring people with previous marriages to prove they could financially support both their previous and future spouse before they could get married. The SCOTUS stated that marriage was "a fundamental right".

Turner v Safley (1987) - This one was about a Missouri law prohibiting convicts from marrying. The SCOTUS did not find it "reasonable".

(BTW, you can Wiki all of these cases if you don't believe my summation of them)

So, when "the gheys" talk about there being a fundamental right to marriage, it's because there is...as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States whose job it is to sort this kind of thing out.

Now, the current challenge is to whether this fundamental right applies to gay and lesbian couples. Those that do not wish to extend this fundamental right to gay and lesbian couples, must come up with a compelling state reason to deny them. They must be able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing them.

Can you?

In almost every state where it has been put to a vote of the people, gay marriage has been defeated, even in the left wing state of california--twice.

The people should decide these things by a majority vote. I am perfectly willing to accept the vote of the majority, are you?

You missed the point entirely didn't you? Do you really expect me to answer your question without you first answering mine?

I do not believe that Civil Rights should EVER be put to a majority vote and I'll give you pictures as to why. Now, you know that Loving v Virginia was decided in 1967. Do you know when it would have passed if put to a majority vote?

See where it passes the majority threshold? 1994...27 years after the SCOTUS ruled on it. Should that have been put to a majority vote, yes or no?

Yes, I do believe that these issues should be put to a majority vote. would you want SCOTUS deciding it if SCOTUS was made up of 9 conservatives?

 

[Seawytch]

You sure you want to vote on it now?

 

[Seawytch]

In almost every state where it has been put to a vote of the people, gay marriage has been defeated, even in the left wing state of california--twice.

The people should decide these things by a majority vote. I am perfectly willing to accept the vote of the majority, are you?

You missed the point entirely didn't you? Do you really expect me to answer your question without you first answering mine?

I do not believe that Civil Rights should EVER be put to a majority vote and I'll give you pictures as to why. Now, you know that Loving v Virginia was decided in 1967. Do you know when it would have passed if put to a majority vote?

See where it passes the majority threshold? 1994...27 years after the SCOTUS ruled on it. Should that have been put to a majority vote, yes or no?

Yes, I do believe that these issues should be put to a majority vote. would you want SCOTUS deciding it if SCOTUS was made up of 9 conservatives?

Yes I would as long as they were deciding based on LAW and PRECEDENT. Still haven't come up with that societal harm I see.

 

[Redfish]

You sure you want to vote on it now?

Yes, and if a majority of US citizens want it, fine. I may not agree, but I will accept the will of the majority, will you?

 

[Redfish]

You missed the point entirely didn't you? Do you really expect me to answer your question without you first answering mine?

I do not believe that Civil Rights should EVER be put to a majority vote and I'll give you pictures as to why. Now, you know that Loving v Virginia was decided in 1967. Do you know when it would have passed if put to a majority vote?

See where it passes the majority threshold? 1994...27 years after the SCOTUS ruled on it. Should that have been put to a majority vote, yes or no?

Yes, I do believe that these issues should be put to a majority vote. would you want SCOTUS deciding it if SCOTUS was made up of 9 conservatives?

Yes I would as long as they were deciding based on LAW and PRECEDENT. Still haven't come up with that societal harm I see.

Societal harm is in the mind of each individual, many believe that the degradation of the traditional family has harmed our society.

Thats why the PEOPLE should vote on these things. Thats the way this country works.

 

[Seawytch]

You sure you want to vote on it now?

Yes, and if a majority of US citizens want it, fine. I may not agree, but I will accept the will of the majority, will you?

I already explained that I don't believe Civil Rights should EVER be put to a majority vote and showed you why. You seem to think that the Judge was wrong in ruling on Loving v Virginia, and think we should have continued to prevent the "races from mixing" for another 27 years. I don't. I think that is WHY we have a Supreme Court, so that they tyranny of the majority does not trample the rights of the minority.

And no, of course I wouldn't "accept" a majority ruling that preventing me from marrying my partner. That's why they are called Civil Rights struggles not Civil Rights give up and go home. The "majority" tried to invalidate my marriage in California (a judge said they couldn't) so I'm still married in my state, but nobody else like me can be. (which is why Prop 8 will be struck down by the SCOTUS).

What we will "accept" is full marriage equality. If you want to change ALL marriage to civil unions to accomplish that, go ahead and try. I'll take the more efficient route.