"Rights are special privileges the government gives you."

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You can't be serious?

May I ask what country you were born to and which you are a citizen of?

So you can't explain what the principles are that define america, so you change the subject.

How is asking you about your national origins changing the subject? The assumption is that you're a US citizen... I've come to find that this is often a bad assumption and that those who present this level of ignorance are Europeans... posing as US Citizens.

It is inexcusable for a natural born US Citizen to not KNOW the principles that define the concept on which the nation rests... while someone from another nation posing as a US Citizen would readily be expected to not understand what they're talking about. Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle, being what they are an all.

So... scamp... where ya from and I'm adding to that, how old are you?

I was born in the USA before WW2 ended, served in the US Navy during the Vietnam war, and I'm waiting for you to explain your belief in what the principles of america are that I should adhere to, and where it's written that I should adhere to them even though you can't explain to me what they are. I'm usually not rude on these forums, but you're basically a mostly incoherent jack ass, just repeating words you heard somewhere.

That is total nonsense.

There is no way that anyone born in the United States BEFORE WW2 would not KNOW of the Charter of American Principles... what is within that charter, the principles themselves and the essential role they play in sustaining the nation.

I was born in 1960 and this was drilled into us from Kindergarten through High School.

But I guess there's no point in beating your dead horse...

I present you the Charter of American Principle, declared as the foundational principles on which the authority to form such was recognized... .

See if any of it looks familiar to ya:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

Anything look familiar there?

 

[thereisnospoon]

You can't be serious?

May I ask what country you were born to and which you are a citizen of?

So you can't explain what the principles are that define america, so you change the subject.

How is asking you about your national origins changing the subject? The assumption is that you're a US citizen... I've come to find that this is often a bad assumption and that those who present this level of ignorance are Europeans... posing as US Citizens.

It is inexcusable for a natural born US Citizen to not KNOW the principles that define the concept on which the nation rests... while someone from another nation posing as a US Citizen would readily be expected to not understand what they're talking about. Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle, being what they are an all.

So... scamp... where ya from and I'm adding to that, how old are you?

I was born in the USA before WW2 ended, served in the US Navy during the Vietnam war, and I'm waiting for you to explain your belief in what the principles of america are that I should adhere to, and where it's written that I should adhere to them even though you can't explain to me what they are. I'm usually not rude on these forums, but you're basically a mostly incoherent jack ass, just repeating words you heard somewhere.

You don't have to do anything. The fact is these rights exist and they are irrefutably given to us by God.
It is your choice to recognize that or not.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Your Government can acknowledge your rights they can not give them to you. Should your government not acknowledge your rights you have the right to revolution.

do people in north korea have the right to vote?

Point? Oh, you have none.

the point is that rights are given by governments.

No, the point is that rights are inherent. They are not granted to me by any person or entity, however, there are people or entities that can and do work to impede them.

so in your mind non-citizens have the right to vote in our elections.

Just STOP IT.....There is no "right" to vote. Not in the sense of our natural rights.
The right to vote is NOT in the bill of rights.

The Bill of Rights does not provide anyone a right to do anything. The bill merely recognizes natural rights central to individual liberty, establishing sharply defined limitation upon government power, because power is the greatest threat to the means of the individual to exercise their rights.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Several liberals here seem confused. All of us have rights regardless of government. Many governments attempt to restrict or eliminate rights of their citizens. This country has a responsibility to show the world our government will not do that. It should start in our education system.

the only rights we have without government are those we can take for ourselves.

Contradictory...You stated clearly that our rights are given to us by government.
Using your logic, in the absence of government we have no rights.
See where we are going here?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Remember how outraged republicans were at the occupy wall street protesters were trying to exercise their free speech? Same with the protests during the Vietnam war. This is why it's laughable, the right wing always accusing the left of being fascists.

The modern republican is an embarrassment.

To you, yes. And that is only because we refuse to kowtow to the liberal agenda.

No it's because you and other rubes are played so easily by your conservative propaganda.

Benghazi, ebola, Obama's birth certificate..... 3 unquestionably debunked and only a couple more to go. And then the republican party will have nothing because they don't concern themselves with issues anymore.

ROFLMNAO!

Talk about a shill for idiocy.

'Ebola' has been debunked?

LMAO! Folks, you can NOT make this crap up.

Roflmnao, the automatic response used by the illiterate and the unintelligent.

How so scamp? And please be as specific as your intellectual limitations allow.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Our rights are inalienable, they manifest as a consequence of our humanity; they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

Although inalienable our rights are not absolute, they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government: “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.” (DC v. Heller (2008)). The Constitution and its case law establishes the boundaries government may not cross when seeking to place restrictions on citizens' liberties, while at the same time affords the citizen an understanding as to the limits of his rights in a free and democratic society, where the Constitution both authorizes government to limit one's civil liberties and protects the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances, seeking relief in the Federal courts.

It is this constant struggle, therefore, between government and governed – government always probing the Constitutional edifice for weaknesses to exploit, and citizens opposing government overreach in the neutral venue of the courts – that a free, just, and viable society is maintained.

 

[jasonnfree]

Nope. The founding Fathers said it, our rights are given by God. Whether or not libtards socialists say otherwise makes no difference.

Only the rights that you like of course.

Remember how outraged republicans were at the occupy wall street protesters for trying to exercise their free speech? Same with the right wing hatred of the protesters during the Vietnam war.

LOL! The Non-Occupying Occupiers were never seen as 'trying to exercise their free speech'. They were seen as, because they WERE: Trying to become the anti-Tea-Party, to cow supporter of the Tea-Party, to do what the Left is designed to do... to destroy property, intimidate toward the acquisition of political power.

"You'll know them by their fruit...". What did the Non-Occupying Occupiers produce? Disorder, Trash, Dysentery and an epidemic of a RAGING CASE OF THE CLAP!

Compare that to the Tea Party... what have they produced? They cleaned up every place they every went, they shut down the Left's rise to power, reversed their Executive and Legislative Majorities throughout US and State Governance and we've returned the nation toward the recognition and defense of, respect for and the adherence to the principles that define America. First cleaning our own house... of progressive insurgents and we're no where CLOSE to finished there... while simultaneously cleaning out the reprobates of the Left.

Quite a distinction... and you can rest assured: THAT is change you can belieb in... .

Remember how outraged republicans were at the occupy wall street protesters for trying to exercise their free speech? Same with the right wing hatred of the protesters during the Vietnam war.

LOL! The Non-Occupying Occupiers were never seen as 'trying to exercise their free speech'. They were seen as, because they WERE: Trying to become the anti-Tea-Party, to cow supporter of the Tea-Party, to do what the Left is designed to do... to destroy property, intimidate toward the acquisition of political power.

"You'll know them by their fruit...". What did the Non-Occupying Occupiers produce? Disorder, Trash, Dysentery and an epidemic of a RAGING CASE OF THE CLAP!

Compare that to the Tea Party... what have they produced? They cleaned up every place they every went, they shut down the Left's rise to power, reversed their Executive and Legislative Majorities throughout US and State Governance and we've returned the nation toward the recognition and defense of, respect for and the adherence to the principles that define America. First cleaning our own house... of progressive insurgents and we're no where CLOSE to finished there... while simultaneously cleaning out the reprobates of the Left.

Quite a distinction... and you can rest assured: THAT is change you can belieb in... .

What are the principles that define America and how should I adhere to them?

You can't be serious?

May I ask what country you were born to and which you are a citizen of?

So you can't explain what the principles are that define america, so you change the subject.

I know you didn't ask me, but I'd like to respond anyway ...

What principles define America?

Let's start at the top -

Self Determination.

The whole context of the American experiment is based on the premise that each person should be able to determine his future, and his happiness. Neither the government, nor other citizens, should have ability to interfere with an individual's pursuit of happiness. Onerous, and unnecessary, regulation and control violates that precept.

Self Responsibility

The American experiment is also rooted in the belief that each citizen is not only capable of caring for himself, but has the innate responsibility to do so. Each citizen should be rewarded - good or bad - for the results of his own activity. If he succeeds, he succeeds - but if he fails, he fails. In either case, he must bear the responsibility, and the results, of his own performance. Thomas Jefferson said, "“I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

Self Control

For the first time in history, the American experiment believed that every citizen is capable of controlling his actions, and as such, should be responsible for the impact of the results of those actions on others. Ronald Reagan said, "“Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.”

Self Government

The American experience demonstrates that the collective wisdom of the people far exceeds the capability of a select few, and that the citizenry must control those who wish to impose upon them. The government of the US must be made to be subservient to the citizenry. Someone once said, "When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

The whole American experiment hinges on the belief that people are smart enough, strong enough, and good enough to exercise control over their government and their society.

Once you accept these pillars, you will have context to understand the documents that implement these concepts.

Sorry --- you can go back to the childish arguing and mindless pissing contests that masquerade as discussion.

The American experience demonstrates that the collective wisdom of the people far exceeds the capability of a select few, and that the citizenry must control those who wish to impose upon them.

So you wish to be controlled by the collective wisdom of the people, taking for granted that that wisdom is correct? Is this to childish of a question for you to answer?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Our rights are inalienable, they manifest as a consequence of our humanity; they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

Although inalienable our rights are not absolute, they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government: “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.” (DC v. Heller (2008)). The Constitution and its case law establishes the boundaries government may not cross when seeking to place restrictions on citizens' liberties, while at the same time affords the citizen an understanding as to the limits of his rights in a free and democratic society, where the Constitution both authorizes government to limit one's civil liberties and protects the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances, seeking relief in the Federal courts.

It is this constant struggle, therefore, between government and governed – government always probing the Constitutional edifice for weaknesses to exploit, and citizens opposing government overreach in the neutral venue of the courts – that a free, just, and viable society is maintained.

This is such nonsense... Rights are not absolute and this is without regard to government whimsy.

I am entitled to do whatever the hell I feel is necessary to fulfill my life, as along as my exercise of that rightful behavior does not infringe upon the means of another to exercise their own rights.

If I need a double barrel howitzer, loaded with thermo-nuclear warheads, and bolted onto a supersonic fighter jet, then I am entitled, on no less an authority then the Creator of the Universe to possess such... but I am NOT ENTITLED TO EXERCISE MY RIGHT TO SUCH AT THE EXPENSE OF SO MUCH AS A SINGLE INNOCENT LIFE...

Just as I am entitled to have sexual intercourse with anyone I can talk into it, as long as I am prepared to bear the responsibilities that come as a consequence of engaging in the behavior which nature designed SPECIFICALLY for PROCREATION, thus where a child is conceived, my RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN COITUS RESTS ENTIRELY UPON MY BEARING THE RESPONSIBILITY TO SUSTAIN THE LIFE I CONCEIVED.

I am NOT ENTITLED TO EXERCISE MY RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN SEXUAL INTERCOURSE AND TO ESCAPE THE SUSTAINING RESPONSIBILITY OF THAT RIGHT: TO DESTROY THE LIFE THAT I CONCEIVED BECAUSE SUCH IS AN INCONVENIENCE!

See how that works?

I do not get my rights from the Government, thus I do not consult the government in the exercising of my rights... in no way and on no level.

My rights are not negotiable, I will not compromise on the exercising of them and I will not tolerate another exercising their would-be right at the expense of my means to exercise my own.

Because I am an American and that... is how we roll.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So ... Jason... I ask again. Do any of those American principle feel familiar to ya?

 

[jasonnfree]

The modern republican is an embarrassment.

To you, yes. And that is only because we refuse to kowtow to the liberal agenda.

No it's because you and other rubes are played so easily by your conservative propaganda.

Benghazi, ebola, Obama's birth certificate..... 3 unquestionably debunked and only a couple more to go. And then the republican party will have nothing because they don't concern themselves with issues anymore.

ROFLMNAO!

Talk about a shill for idiocy.

'Ebola' has been debunked?

LMAO! Folks, you can NOT make this crap up.

Roflmnao, the automatic response used by the illiterate and the unintelligent.

How so scamp? And please be as specific as your intellectual limitations allow.

You're only capable of answering questions with buzzwords. Can't too much more specific about roflmnao

 

[Spare_change]

Only the rights that you like of course.

Remember how outraged republicans were at the occupy wall street protesters for trying to exercise their free speech? Same with the right wing hatred of the protesters during the Vietnam war.

LOL! The Non-Occupying Occupiers were never seen as 'trying to exercise their free speech'. They were seen as, because they WERE: Trying to become the anti-Tea-Party, to cow supporter of the Tea-Party, to do what the Left is designed to do... to destroy property, intimidate toward the acquisition of political power.

"You'll know them by their fruit...". What did the Non-Occupying Occupiers produce? Disorder, Trash, Dysentery and an epidemic of a RAGING CASE OF THE CLAP!

Compare that to the Tea Party... what have they produced? They cleaned up every place they every went, they shut down the Left's rise to power, reversed their Executive and Legislative Majorities throughout US and State Governance and we've returned the nation toward the recognition and defense of, respect for and the adherence to the principles that define America. First cleaning our own house... of progressive insurgents and we're no where CLOSE to finished there... while simultaneously cleaning out the reprobates of the Left.

Quite a distinction... and you can rest assured: THAT is change you can belieb in... .

LOL! The Non-Occupying Occupiers were never seen as 'trying to exercise their free speech'. They were seen as, because they WERE: Trying to become the anti-Tea-Party, to cow supporter of the Tea-Party, to do what the Left is designed to do... to destroy property, intimidate toward the acquisition of political power.

"You'll know them by their fruit...". What did the Non-Occupying Occupiers produce? Disorder, Trash, Dysentery and an epidemic of a RAGING CASE OF THE CLAP!

Compare that to the Tea Party... what have they produced? They cleaned up every place they every went, they shut down the Left's rise to power, reversed their Executive and Legislative Majorities throughout US and State Governance and we've returned the nation toward the recognition and defense of, respect for and the adherence to the principles that define America. First cleaning our own house... of progressive insurgents and we're no where CLOSE to finished there... while simultaneously cleaning out the reprobates of the Left.

Quite a distinction... and you can rest assured: THAT is change you can belieb in... .

What are the principles that define America and how should I adhere to them?

You can't be serious?

May I ask what country you were born to and which you are a citizen of?

So you can't explain what the principles are that define america, so you change the subject.

I know you didn't ask me, but I'd like to respond anyway ...

What principles define America?

Let's start at the top -

Self Determination.

The whole context of the American experiment is based on the premise that each person should be able to determine his future, and his happiness. Neither the government, nor other citizens, should have ability to interfere with an individual's pursuit of happiness. Onerous, and unnecessary, regulation and control violates that precept.

Self Responsibility

The American experiment is also rooted in the belief that each citizen is not only capable of caring for himself, but has the innate responsibility to do so. Each citizen should be rewarded - good or bad - for the results of his own activity. If he succeeds, he succeeds - but if he fails, he fails. In either case, he must bear the responsibility, and the results, of his own performance. Thomas Jefferson said, "“I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

Self Control

For the first time in history, the American experiment believed that every citizen is capable of controlling his actions, and as such, should be responsible for the impact of the results of those actions on others. Ronald Reagan said, "“Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.”

Self Government

The American experience demonstrates that the collective wisdom of the people far exceeds the capability of a select few, and that the citizenry must control those who wish to impose upon them. The government of the US must be made to be subservient to the citizenry. Someone once said, "When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

The whole American experiment hinges on the belief that people are smart enough, strong enough, and good enough to exercise control over their government and their society.

Once you accept these pillars, you will have context to understand the documents that implement these concepts.

Sorry --- you can go back to the childish arguing and mindless pissing contests that masquerade as discussion.

The American experience demonstrates that the collective wisdom of the people far exceeds the capability of a select few, and that the citizenry must control those who wish to impose upon them.

So you wish to be controlled by the collective wisdom of the people, taking for granted that that wisdom is correct? Is this to childish of a question for you to answer?

BINGO!!! You, and Mr. Gruber, have let the cat out of the bag ... you have demonstrated the inherent bias, the poison, of the liberal left ... that YOU know better .. that YOU are smarter than everybody else ... that the average person is incapable of making these highly complex and profound decisions ... so they should just leave it to the elite class to handle it for them. You don't want citizens ... you want lemmings.

Now, to answer your question ... you DAMN right I believe in the collective wisdom of the American people, versus a small group of disconnected, disaffected, and dishonest elitists who so profoundly believe in their inherent superiority that they dare to even ask such a stupid question.

Oh, by the way, that collective wisdom of the people? I get to participate in it. THAT is what makes it smarter - LOL!

I hope I was clear.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

To you, yes. And that is only because we refuse to kowtow to the liberal agenda.

No it's because you and other rubes are played so easily by your conservative propaganda.

Benghazi, ebola, Obama's birth certificate..... 3 unquestionably debunked and only a couple more to go. And then the republican party will have nothing because they don't concern themselves with issues anymore.

ROFLMNAO!

Talk about a shill for idiocy.

'Ebola' has been debunked?

LMAO! Folks, you can NOT make this crap up.

Roflmnao, the automatic response used by the illiterate and the unintelligent.

How so scamp? And please be as specific as your intellectual limitations allow.

You're only capable of answering questions with buzzwords. Can't too much more specific about roflmnao

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Spare_change]

Our rights are inalienable, they manifest as a consequence of our humanity; they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

Although inalienable our rights are not absolute, they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government: “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.” (DC v. Heller (2008)). The Constitution and its case law establishes the boundaries government may not cross when seeking to place restrictions on citizens' liberties, while at the same time affords the citizen an understanding as to the limits of his rights in a free and democratic society, where the Constitution both authorizes government to limit one's civil liberties and protects the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances, seeking relief in the Federal courts.

It is this constant struggle, therefore, between government and governed – government always probing the Constitutional edifice for weaknesses to exploit, and citizens opposing government overreach in the neutral venue of the courts – that a free, just, and viable society is maintained.

This is such nonsense... Rights are not absolute and this is without regard to government whimsy.

I am entitled to do whatever the hell I feel is necessary to fulfill my life, as along as my exercise of that rightful behavior does not infringe upon the means of another to exercise their own rights.

If I need a double barrel howitzer, loaded with thermo-nuclear warheads, and bolted onto a supersonic fighter jet, then I am entitled, on no less an authority then the Creator of the Universe to possess such... but I am NOT ENTITLED TO EXERCISE MY RIGHT TO SUCH AT THE EXPENSE OF SO MUCH AS A SINGLE INNOCENT LIFE...

Just as I am entitled to have sexual intercourse with anyone I can talk into it, as long as I am prepared to bear the responsibilities that come as a consequence of engaging in the behavior which nature designed SPECIFICALLY for PROCREATION, thus where a child is conceived, my RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN COITUS RESTS ENTIRELY UPON MY BEARING THE RESPONSIBILITY TO SUSTAIN THE LIFE I CONCEIVED.

I am NOT ENTITLED TO EXERCISE MY RIGHT TO ENGAGE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE AND TO DESTROY THE LIFE THAT I CONCEIVED BECAUSE SUCH IS AN INCONVENIENCE!

See how that works?

I do not get my rights from the Government, thus I do not consult the government in the exercising of my rights... in no way and on no level.

My rights are not negotiable, I will not compromise on the exercising of them and I will not tolerate another exercising their would-be right at the expense of my means to exercise my own.

Because I am an American and that... is how we roll.

What convoluted, tortured logic .... clearly, you don't even understand what your rights are, nor do you understand the social contract inherent in those rights.

Rights are absolute ... until you grasp that, you'll never understand. "double barrel howitzer, loaded with thermo-nuclear warheads" is not a right ... but, I'll leave you to figure that out.

(Look out, folks, here's where they trot out the "but you believe in the Second Amendment" rights BS - hoping to catch me in a massive faux pas)

 

[jasonnfree]

So ... Jason... I ask again. Do any of those American principle feel familiar to ya?

Not really. I consider most of what you say patriotic b.s., not trying to be rude or anything. The founders didn't intend for the common man to have too much of a say in governing to begin with. Patriotic words fill a guy with pride, which is great when you need recruits for war, for example.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Remember how outraged republicans were at the occupy wall street protesters for trying to exercise their free speech? Same with the right wing hatred of the protesters during the Vietnam war.

LOL! The Non-Occupying Occupiers were never seen as 'trying to exercise their free speech'. They were seen as, because they WERE: Trying to become the anti-Tea-Party, to cow supporter of the Tea-Party, to do what the Left is designed to do... to destroy property, intimidate toward the acquisition of political power.

"You'll know them by their fruit...". What did the Non-Occupying Occupiers produce? Disorder, Trash, Dysentery and an epidemic of a RAGING CASE OF THE CLAP!

Compare that to the Tea Party... what have they produced? They cleaned up every place they every went, they shut down the Left's rise to power, reversed their Executive and Legislative Majorities throughout US and State Governance and we've returned the nation toward the recognition and defense of, respect for and the adherence to the principles that define America. First cleaning our own house... of progressive insurgents and we're no where CLOSE to finished there... while simultaneously cleaning out the reprobates of the Left.

Quite a distinction... and you can rest assured: THAT is change you can belieb in... .

What are the principles that define America and how should I adhere to them?

You can't be serious?

May I ask what country you were born to and which you are a citizen of?

So you can't explain what the principles are that define america, so you change the subject.

I know you didn't ask me, but I'd like to respond anyway ...

What principles define America?

Let's start at the top -

Self Determination.

The whole context of the American experiment is based on the premise that each person should be able to determine his future, and his happiness. Neither the government, nor other citizens, should have ability to interfere with an individual's pursuit of happiness. Onerous, and unnecessary, regulation and control violates that precept.

Self Responsibility

The American experiment is also rooted in the belief that each citizen is not only capable of caring for himself, but has the innate responsibility to do so. Each citizen should be rewarded - good or bad - for the results of his own activity. If he succeeds, he succeeds - but if he fails, he fails. In either case, he must bear the responsibility, and the results, of his own performance. Thomas Jefferson said, "“I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

Self Control

For the first time in history, the American experiment believed that every citizen is capable of controlling his actions, and as such, should be responsible for the impact of the results of those actions on others. Ronald Reagan said, "“Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.”

Self Government

The American experience demonstrates that the collective wisdom of the people far exceeds the capability of a select few, and that the citizenry must control those who wish to impose upon them. The government of the US must be made to be subservient to the citizenry. Someone once said, "When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

The whole American experiment hinges on the belief that people are smart enough, strong enough, and good enough to exercise control over their government and their society.

Once you accept these pillars, you will have context to understand the documents that implement these concepts.

Sorry --- you can go back to the childish arguing and mindless pissing contests that masquerade as discussion.

The American experience demonstrates that the collective wisdom of the people far exceeds the capability of a select few, and that the citizenry must control those who wish to impose upon them.

So you wish to be controlled by the collective wisdom of the people, taking for granted that that wisdom is correct? Is this to childish of a question for you to answer?

BINGO!!! You, and Mr. Gruber, have let the cat out of the bag ... you have demonstrated the inherent bias, the poison, of the liberal left ... that YOU know better .. that YOU are smarter than everybody else ... that the average person is incapable of making these highly complex and profound decisions ... so they should just leave it to the elite class to handle it for them. You don't want citizens ... you want lemmings.

Now, to answer your question ... you DAMN right I believe in the collective wisdom of the American people, versus a small group of disconnected, disaffected, and dishonest elitists who so profoundly believe in their inherent superiority that they dare to even ask such a stupid question.

Oh, by the way, that collective wisdom of the people? I get to participate in it. THAT is what makes it smarter - LOL!

I hope I was clear.

Just Bravo...

B R A V O !




​

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Our rights are inalienable, they manifest as a consequence of our humanity; they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

Although inalienable our rights are not absolute, they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government: “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.” (DC v. Heller (2008)). The Constitution and its case law establishes the boundaries government may not cross when seeking to place restrictions on citizens' liberties, while at the same time affords the citizen an understanding as to the limits of his rights in a free and democratic society, where the Constitution both authorizes government to limit one's civil liberties and protects the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances, seeking relief in the Federal courts.

It is this constant struggle, therefore, between government and governed – government always probing the Constitutional edifice for weaknesses to exploit, and citizens opposing government overreach in the neutral venue of the courts – that a free, just, and viable society is maintained.

This is such nonsense... Rights are not absolute and this is without regard to government whimsy.

I am entitled to do whatever the hell I feel is necessary to fulfill my life, as along as my exercise of that rightful behavior does not infringe upon the means of another to exercise their own rights.

If I need a double barrel howitzer, loaded with thermo-nuclear warheads, and bolted onto a supersonic fighter jet, then I am entitled, on no less an authority then the Creator of the Universe to possess such... but I am NOT ENTITLED TO EXERCISE MY RIGHT TO SUCH AT THE EXPENSE OF SO MUCH AS A SINGLE INNOCENT LIFE...

Just as I am entitled to have sexual intercourse with anyone I can talk into it, as long as I am prepared to bear the responsibilities that come as a consequence of engaging in the behavior which nature designed SPECIFICALLY for PROCREATION, thus where a child is conceived, my RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN COITUS RESTS ENTIRELY UPON MY BEARING THE RESPONSIBILITY TO SUSTAIN THE LIFE I CONCEIVED.

I am NOT ENTITLED TO EXERCISE MY RIGHT TO ENGAGE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE AND TO DESTROY THE LIFE THAT I CONCEIVED BECAUSE SUCH IS AN INCONVENIENCE!

See how that works?

I do not get my rights from the Government, thus I do not consult the government in the exercising of my rights... in no way and on no level.

My rights are not negotiable, I will not compromise on the exercising of them and I will not tolerate another exercising their would-be right at the expense of my means to exercise my own.

Because I am an American and that... is how we roll.

What convoluted, tortured logic .... clearly, you don't even understand what your rights are, nor do you understand the social contract inherent in those rights.

Rights are absolute ... until you grasp that, you'll never understand. "double barrel howitzer, loaded with thermo-nuclear warheads" is not a right ... but, I'll leave you to figure that out.

(Look out, folks, here's where they trot out the "but you believe in the Second Amendment" rights BS - hoping to catch me in a massive faux pas)

Have you ever seen a double barrel howitzer that shoots nuclear ordinance? If you did you'd be saying, "Damn, I want one!" too.

 

[Spare_change]

So ... Jason... I ask again. Do any of those American principle feel familiar to ya?

Not really. I consider most of what you say patriotic b.s., not trying to be rude or anything. The founders didn't intend for the common man to have too much of a say in governing to begin with. Patriotic words fill a guy with pride, which is great when you need recruits for war, for example.

No legitimate response, so changing the subject? We can address the fallacy of this, too, if you like.

 

[jasonnfree]

No it's because you and other rubes are played so easily by your conservative propaganda.

Benghazi, ebola, Obama's birth certificate..... 3 unquestionably debunked and only a couple more to go. And then the republican party will have nothing because they don't concern themselves with issues anymore.

ROFLMNAO!

Talk about a shill for idiocy.

'Ebola' has been debunked?

LMAO! Folks, you can NOT make this crap up.

Roflmnao, the automatic response used by the illiterate and the unintelligent.

How so scamp? And please be as specific as your intellectual limitations allow.

You're only capable of answering questions with buzzwords. Can't too much more specific about roflmnao

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Allowing a buzzword to be a response is conceding? Ok, have it your way, go find your keys why dontcha?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So ... Jason... I ask again. Do any of those American principle feel familiar to ya?

Not really. I consider most of what you say patriotic b.s., not trying to be rude or anything. The founders didn't intend for the common man to have too much of a say in governing to begin with. Patriotic words fill a guy with pride, which is great when you need recruits for war, for example.

So you have no actual kinship with America and this being so based upon your rejection of American Principle and the adherence to Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle.

Fair enough... I should have taken that to Vegas. Could have made a fortune!

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Spare_change]

Our rights are inalienable, they manifest as a consequence of our humanity; they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

Although inalienable our rights are not absolute, they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government: “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.” (DC v. Heller (2008)). The Constitution and its case law establishes the boundaries government may not cross when seeking to place restrictions on citizens' liberties, while at the same time affords the citizen an understanding as to the limits of his rights in a free and democratic society, where the Constitution both authorizes government to limit one's civil liberties and protects the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances, seeking relief in the Federal courts.

It is this constant struggle, therefore, between government and governed – government always probing the Constitutional edifice for weaknesses to exploit, and citizens opposing government overreach in the neutral venue of the courts – that a free, just, and viable society is maintained.

This is such nonsense... Rights are not absolute and this is without regard to government whimsy.

I am entitled to do whatever the hell I feel is necessary to fulfill my life, as along as my exercise of that rightful behavior does not infringe upon the means of another to exercise their own rights.

If I need a double barrel howitzer, loaded with thermo-nuclear warheads, and bolted onto a supersonic fighter jet, then I am entitled, on no less an authority then the Creator of the Universe to possess such... but I am NOT ENTITLED TO EXERCISE MY RIGHT TO SUCH AT THE EXPENSE OF SO MUCH AS A SINGLE INNOCENT LIFE...

Just as I am entitled to have sexual intercourse with anyone I can talk into it, as long as I am prepared to bear the responsibilities that come as a consequence of engaging in the behavior which nature designed SPECIFICALLY for PROCREATION, thus where a child is conceived, my RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN COITUS RESTS ENTIRELY UPON MY BEARING THE RESPONSIBILITY TO SUSTAIN THE LIFE I CONCEIVED.

I am NOT ENTITLED TO EXERCISE MY RIGHT TO ENGAGE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE AND TO DESTROY THE LIFE THAT I CONCEIVED BECAUSE SUCH IS AN INCONVENIENCE!

See how that works?

I do not get my rights from the Government, thus I do not consult the government in the exercising of my rights... in no way and on no level.

My rights are not negotiable, I will not compromise on the exercising of them and I will not tolerate another exercising their would-be right at the expense of my means to exercise my own.

Because I am an American and that... is how we roll.

What convoluted, tortured logic .... clearly, you don't even understand what your rights are, nor do you understand the social contract inherent in those rights.

Rights are absolute ... until you grasp that, you'll never understand. "double barrel howitzer, loaded with thermo-nuclear warheads" is not a right ... but, I'll leave you to figure that out.

(Look out, folks, here's where they trot out the "but you believe in the Second Amendment" rights BS - hoping to catch me in a massive faux pas)

Have you ever seen a double barrel howitzer that shoots nuclear ordinance? If you did you'd be saying, "Damn, I want one!" too.

Personally, i use mine for hunting rabbits ... gotta kill a lot of those suckers to get a pot full, though.