The Right To Bear Arms

[Silhouette]

I'm instead advocating for the right to arm bears...could get weird on the Summer camping trips..

 

[ChrisL]

The lying's on your wide, you sad hag.


But now, Trump opposes any sort of restriction on them. "Gun and magazine bans are a total failure," he says on his site.

Rather than impose gun control on law-abiding citizens, he wants to imprison gun-toting violent criminals for longer periods of time. Rather than expand background checks, he wants to fix the current system, which he says is "broken."

He also dismisses "scary sounding phrases" like "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines," which are only meant to "confuse people." Instead, he calls them "popular semi-automatic rifles" and "standard magazines."...

Where Donald Trump stands on guns

So you think he evolved on 38 issues….told you you’d lie through your teeth. You guys are so predictable when it comes to your messiah.

According to the National gun rights association, your messiah:

*** Recently, Donald Trump came out in full support of the President’s “no-fly, no guns” plan to strip gun rights from law-abiding Americans by labeling them “terrorists.” 2

The stakes couldn't be higher

Roh-Roh

Sorry to disappoint, but I don't worship Politicians the way you Barking Moonbats do.

I can see why since your messiah is on the other side of so many issues and disagrees with you on everything.
What I can’t understand is why you can’t see your messiah is playing you for a fool…but then again. Given the material he has to work with, what else could he play you for?

Since you're the one who can't stop talking about The Trumpster and his views, it seems like he might be your messiah.

I haven't seen any Trump supporters call him "sort of God" or talk about leg tingles at the sight of the crease in his pants.

Just sayin'.

He's not my "messiah." He's way too much of an asshole, and I hate his haircut. My messiah would have great hair at least. Lol.

 

[turtledude]

NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights.

Your devotion to idiots like Hilary is the greatest threat to the rights of REAL GUN OWNERS

 

[turtledude]

The 2nd Amendment may be the most fucked up sentence ever written.

Reading the Second Amendment | Sheldon Richman

people who pretend it says something other than a complete ban on federal action in the area are usually fucked up

 

[frigidweirdo]

The 2nd Amendment may be the most fucked up sentence ever written.

Reading the Second Amendment | Sheldon Richman

Only to idiots and statists....

But we know there's a problem.....

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, only you decide if you are willing to concede your inalienable rights.

NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights.

Have you conceded your inalienable right to kill people yet?

? frigidweirdo
To kill someone violates their free will, freedom of choice, or free exercise of religion
where they believe they have the right to live. That is against their First Amendment
rights which indirectly protect the right to life as a belief, as well as right to choose,
not to mention their right to assemble in peace and to petition to redress grievances.
If I deny the right to protest and petition for a different outcome they consent to,
I'd also be violating First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection of the laws.

To use arms to defend laws or for defense, there is the Constitutional principle of
"due process of law" -- if we don't violate this by forcing punishments on people or depriving them of liberty "without due process," then we won't have these problems to being with of using force for offense or defense.

If someone is killed or they are raped, robbed, assaulted, "punished or deprived of liberty without due process", or otherwise afflicted with any crime abuse or violation against their will, they are not being "equally protected" as the person inflicting their will on the other person. So that's not equal protection or equal justice. The only way to enforce Equal Protection
or Equal Justice Under Law is to PREVENT all abuses and crimes from violating someone's rights in the first place, i e, respect the CONSENT
of each person and redress ALL grievances and objections to make decisions by CONSENSUS
before carrying them out - by mutual AGREEMENT. I believe the spirit of laws and contracts is based on "consent of the governed" so that is the standard of law I support, personally and publicly, in order to enforce a consistent standard for people and for government for equality sake.

That is why I believe in mediation and conflict resolution to ensure
the highest possible success rate of reaching consensus (I'd say 80-98% agreement is possible in most cases
if you remove the time limit and give full free speech so people can redress all grievances freely and fully).

I am certainly not going to violate the same laws I seek to
enforce for myself and others equally as a Constitutionalist.

To kill someone, they'd have to agree to that, first of all, such as in police situations where the police are otherwise unable to stop the person from killing others. Sometimes they can disable the person without necessarily killing them, so I do prefer the least restrictive means that cause the least damage.

I am not a trained officer, and would likely die at the hand of someone acting that way before I could defend myself.

If they don't want to live they can choose to quit eating and die of starvation, choose to give up their will to live and die of depression etc. Choose not to ask for help, and choose to refuse any offer of help given to them.

It is not my place to hasten the process even if they do consent to die.
I would have them seek spiritual mental and medical counseling if they go down that route
as I believe most lives can be saved. I have found that even criminal illness can be cured if cases are caught early enough where the person receives full therapy and is detained or supervised to avoid harming themselves or others during rehab that can take 10-25 years if it is cureable at all in severe cases.

But if they choose not to listen and cut off all support, I can't force them to live any more than
I can force someone to die. I can offer help, support and better options but can't force people to choose them.

The only thing that can compel people to choose to do things beyond their will is God's will through prayer. So I learned to respect why Christians pray and hold the authority of Christ Jesus in the highest regard, because it has saved lives and healed people of mental, physical and even criminal illnesses that otherwise kill people.

The same prayers for forgiveness and healing that have "miraculously" saved lives from death from addiction, abuse, crime and disease
ALSO heal relationships and allow people to resolve conflicts we didn't think were possible either.

Because I am secular gentile, and most of my friends are more secular than I am,
I support medical research and scientific proof of how spiritual healing works to heal
physical, mental and even criminal illness to solve a lot of our problems with the current
mental health, criminal justice and political systems under govt. We can save more
money and more lives, but the research and development has to be established by
secular and scientific means. Currently the effective methods of spiritual healing that have been proven through limited studies are consistently practiced in faith based circles, but not yet understood by the general public.

Yes, I know all of that. I wasn't seriously suggesting there was a right to take someone's life.

What I was getting at more was, who decides what are "inalienable rights"? I mean, in the rest of the world, owning a gun is not an "inalienable right", but in the US people think it is. So who decides?

 

[kaz]

NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights.

What? Was that supposed to make sense?

 

[ChrisL]

No, only you decide if you are willing to concede your inalienable rights.

NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights.

Have you conceded your inalienable right to kill people yet?

? frigidweirdo
To kill someone violates their free will, freedom of choice, or free exercise of religion
where they believe they have the right to live. That is against their First Amendment
rights which indirectly protect the right to life as a belief, as well as right to choose,
not to mention their right to assemble in peace and to petition to redress grievances.
If I deny the right to protest and petition for a different outcome they consent to,
I'd also be violating First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection of the laws.

To use arms to defend laws or for defense, there is the Constitutional principle of
"due process of law" -- if we don't violate this by forcing punishments on people or depriving them of liberty "without due process," then we won't have these problems to being with of using force for offense or defense.

If someone is killed or they are raped, robbed, assaulted, "punished or deprived of liberty without due process", or otherwise afflicted with any crime abuse or violation against their will, they are not being "equally protected" as the person inflicting their will on the other person. So that's not equal protection or equal justice. The only way to enforce Equal Protection
or Equal Justice Under Law is to PREVENT all abuses and crimes from violating someone's rights in the first place, i e, respect the CONSENT
of each person and redress ALL grievances and objections to make decisions by CONSENSUS
before carrying them out - by mutual AGREEMENT. I believe the spirit of laws and contracts is based on "consent of the governed" so that is the standard of law I support, personally and publicly, in order to enforce a consistent standard for people and for government for equality sake.

That is why I believe in mediation and conflict resolution to ensure
the highest possible success rate of reaching consensus (I'd say 80-98% agreement is possible in most cases
if you remove the time limit and give full free speech so people can redress all grievances freely and fully).

I am certainly not going to violate the same laws I seek to
enforce for myself and others equally as a Constitutionalist.

To kill someone, they'd have to agree to that, first of all, such as in police situations where the police are otherwise unable to stop the person from killing others. Sometimes they can disable the person without necessarily killing them, so I do prefer the least restrictive means that cause the least damage.

I am not a trained officer, and would likely die at the hand of someone acting that way before I could defend myself.

If they don't want to live they can choose to quit eating and die of starvation, choose to give up their will to live and die of depression etc. Choose not to ask for help, and choose to refuse any offer of help given to them.

It is not my place to hasten the process even if they do consent to die.
I would have them seek spiritual mental and medical counseling if they go down that route
as I believe most lives can be saved. I have found that even criminal illness can be cured if cases are caught early enough where the person receives full therapy and is detained or supervised to avoid harming themselves or others during rehab that can take 10-25 years if it is cureable at all in severe cases.

But if they choose not to listen and cut off all support, I can't force them to live any more than
I can force someone to die. I can offer help, support and better options but can't force people to choose them.

The only thing that can compel people to choose to do things beyond their will is God's will through prayer. So I learned to respect why Christians pray and hold the authority of Christ Jesus in the highest regard, because it has saved lives and healed people of mental, physical and even criminal illnesses that otherwise kill people.

The same prayers for forgiveness and healing that have "miraculously" saved lives from death from addiction, abuse, crime and disease
ALSO heal relationships and allow people to resolve conflicts we didn't think were possible either.

Because I am secular gentile, and most of my friends are more secular than I am,
I support medical research and scientific proof of how spiritual healing works to heal
physical, mental and even criminal illness to solve a lot of our problems with the current
mental health, criminal justice and political systems under govt. We can save more
money and more lives, but the research and development has to be established by
secular and scientific means. Currently the effective methods of spiritual healing that have been proven through limited studies are consistently practiced in faith based circles, but not yet understood by the general public.

Yes, I know all of that. I wasn't seriously suggesting there was a right to take someone's life.

What I was getting at more was, who decides what are "inalienable rights"? I mean, in the rest of the world, owning a gun is not an "inalienable right", but in the US people think it is. So who decides?

We the people, that's who. We have a natural human right to self defense. Simple. We don't "think" it is. We aren't the "rest of the world" and we don't care what the rest of the world does. That's what makes US special.

 

[turtledude]

NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights.

What? Was that supposed to make sense?

Big Chief say Lakhota speak with fucked tongue

 

[emilynghiem]

No, only you decide if you are willing to concede your inalienable rights.

NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights.

Have you conceded your inalienable right to kill people yet?

? frigidweirdo
To kill someone violates their free will, freedom of choice, or free exercise of religion
where they believe they have the right to live. That is against their First Amendment
rights which indirectly protect the right to life as a belief, as well as right to choose,
not to mention their right to assemble in peace and to petition to redress grievances.
If I deny the right to protest and petition for a different outcome they consent to,
I'd also be violating First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection of the laws.

To use arms to defend laws or for defense, there is the Constitutional principle of
"due process of law" -- if we don't violate this by forcing punishments on people or depriving them of liberty "without due process," then we won't have these problems to being with of using force for offense or defense.

If someone is killed or they are raped, robbed, assaulted, "punished or deprived of liberty without due process", or otherwise afflicted with any crime abuse or violation against their will, they are not being "equally protected" as the person inflicting their will on the other person. So that's not equal protection or equal justice. The only way to enforce Equal Protection
or Equal Justice Under Law is to PREVENT all abuses and crimes from violating someone's rights in the first place, i e, respect the CONSENT
of each person and redress ALL grievances and objections to make decisions by CONSENSUS
before carrying them out - by mutual AGREEMENT. I believe the spirit of laws and contracts is based on "consent of the governed" so that is the standard of law I support, personally and publicly, in order to enforce a consistent standard for people and for government for equality sake.

That is why I believe in mediation and conflict resolution to ensure
the highest possible success rate of reaching consensus (I'd say 80-98% agreement is possible in most cases
if you remove the time limit and give full free speech so people can redress all grievances freely and fully).

I am certainly not going to violate the same laws I seek to
enforce for myself and others equally as a Constitutionalist.

To kill someone, they'd have to agree to that, first of all, such as in police situations where the police are otherwise unable to stop the person from killing others. Sometimes they can disable the person without necessarily killing them, so I do prefer the least restrictive means that cause the least damage.

I am not a trained officer, and would likely die at the hand of someone acting that way before I could defend myself.

If they don't want to live they can choose to quit eating and die of starvation, choose to give up their will to live and die of depression etc. Choose not to ask for help, and choose to refuse any offer of help given to them.

It is not my place to hasten the process even if they do consent to die.
I would have them seek spiritual mental and medical counseling if they go down that route
as I believe most lives can be saved. I have found that even criminal illness can be cured if cases are caught early enough where the person receives full therapy and is detained or supervised to avoid harming themselves or others during rehab that can take 10-25 years if it is cureable at all in severe cases.

But if they choose not to listen and cut off all support, I can't force them to live any more than
I can force someone to die. I can offer help, support and better options but can't force people to choose them.

The only thing that can compel people to choose to do things beyond their will is God's will through prayer. So I learned to respect why Christians pray and hold the authority of Christ Jesus in the highest regard, because it has saved lives and healed people of mental, physical and even criminal illnesses that otherwise kill people.

The same prayers for forgiveness and healing that have "miraculously" saved lives from death from addiction, abuse, crime and disease
ALSO heal relationships and allow people to resolve conflicts we didn't think were possible either.

Because I am secular gentile, and most of my friends are more secular than I am,
I support medical research and scientific proof of how spiritual healing works to heal
physical, mental and even criminal illness to solve a lot of our problems with the current
mental health, criminal justice and political systems under govt. We can save more
money and more lives, but the research and development has to be established by
secular and scientific means. Currently the effective methods of spiritual healing that have been proven through limited studies are consistently practiced in faith based circles, but not yet understood by the general public.

Yes, I know all of that. I wasn't seriously suggesting there was a right to take someone's life.

What I was getting at more was, who decides what are "inalienable rights"? I mean, in the rest of the world, owning a gun is not an "inalienable right", but in the US people think it is. So who decides?

Dear frigidweirdo
I find people naturally agree on this, though they express it differently.
To make this clearly agreed upon, I do think we need a Constitutional conference
so everyone is on the same page with these concepts, and the language different groups use for the same principles.

A. I have found everyone I know believes in their own free will, right to consent and dissent.
Every human being I've met practices this every day. We defend our beliefs, interests and will naturally as human beings
with "free will reason and conscience"

This is a natural law, which I would put into legal terms as
* free exercise of religion (the reason I equate or expand this as free will is to treat all
people's beliefs equally under law who don't necessarily affiliate with an organized religion, so
the common factor I have found regardless of having a particular faith is one's consent or will)
* freedom of choice/right to choose/prochoice
* civil liberties
NOTE: Christians recognize that man's free will is limited to be within laws of nature/God
where we cannot will things outside our reality or power/control.
But generally recognize that God made man with free will, where this notion of
"Forgiveness" cannot be forced on people but must be chosen freely, where we AGREE to receive or grant forgiveness.

Indirectly this notion of free will is expressed as
* consent of the governed, or informed consent, as the basis of civil laws and contracts
* no taxation without representation (another way of saying people must consent to policies we pay for)

I don't know anyone who disagree with this, when it comes to what THAT person believes in,
consent or dissents.

The main problem I find is
* we use different language to express this
* we apply it more to one issue than another (ie whether we don't consent to
gun laws, abortion laws, health care laws, marriage laws, immigration laws)
* we defend our own rights and beliefs but don't always respect the same of our neighbors doing the same thing

We are all arguing for our right to consent and no taxation without representing us,
but we don't enforce this standard equally; we are selectively defending one issue while
attacking someone else's equal right to consent or dissent on another issue.

B. we Express this free will and our right to consent or dissent by other laws
* freedom of speech or of the press (spoken or written communications)
* right to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances (protesting or voicing objections especially)
* due process of law / equal access to democratic process of representation or legal defense
This area has been monopolized by privatized or politicized interests, which results
in legal and legislative "bullying" to abuse "greater force" to overpower the opposition or dissension.

Again, everyone I know naturally invokes and exercises their
rights to defense, to petition and seek due process by
"freedom of speech, or of the press" as natural law that all human beings follow as part of our collective social behavior
and growth toward democratic self-government for sustainable peace and justice.

Every human being I've ever met was striving for peace/security and freedom/justice by their terms
to feel secure. So all natural rights stem from this inherent will in people, and how they express it in society.

C. Some areas where people disagree on what is natural rights and what is political/depending on govt
1. right to bear arms and right to vote
I say these are partially dependent on the govt system and whether people are defending the law.
Where people protest these rights is where they fear people seek to abuse them without check for criminal purposes
and therefore demand greater regulation to prevent abuse.
2. right to life and right to health care
Again, people disagree to what degree govt can or cannot regulate or impose these.
From abortion to the death penalty, euthanasia and suicide, I've just about heard it all.
Even the right to homicide without punishment, yes I've heard and talked to people regarding beliefs in that degree of freedom.
3. right to marriage, to livable housing and work conditions
This gets into areas where people don't agree between rights and privileges,
govt duty and free market, state vs. federal govt.

I believe we are reaching a level of self-governance where we should host
Constitutional conferences and decide where to draw the line between
public and private, which may vary from one region or state to the next.

Some may still depend on federal govt, but some populations or groups
may be ready to take on self-govt, or invest in private organizations to handle social programs
and not run these through govt.

The more we reward people, groups or states with tax breaks for taking on responsibilities
for managing social and educational programs locally, the less burden on federal govt, and the more the central
govt can focus on national security and emergency/disasters, while letting citizens handle
the mundane level of social programs locally.

Especially in areas we don't agree on, we may need to delegate these by party or by
groups which do share the same beliefs, and not impose that publicly through govt except
where it affects public safety and national security on a global scale.

sorry frigidweirdo for the long response
in short where I would summarize what are the basic natural laws and human rights
A. free exercise of religion, free will or individual "executive" power to carry out or act on our beliefs (note: this and other freedoms are still checked and balanced with the right of all people peaceably to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances, so none of these rights/freedoms in the First Amendment can be abused to the point of violating the same of others without breaking the very natural law that embraces all of these together in context)
B. freedom of speech or individual "judicial" power to speak our opinions and interpretations of what is consistent with truth and justice, and express our consent or dissent
C. freedom of the press or individual "legislative" power to write out our agreements and contracts, our terms and records, and to share information for educated choice and informed consent
D. the right peaceably to assemble to petition for redress of grievances
(combination of right of security and right of due process of law that is spelled out in other amendments more specifically)
E. I would add the Fourteenth Amendment on equal protection of the laws (and
Civil Rights language against discrimination by creed which I use to cover religious
and political beliefs equally).

Everyone I know naturally exercises these.
All OTHER beliefs (religious or political) we may or may not agree on, fall under "free exercise of religion" and "equal protection of the laws from discrimination by creed"

See sources posted: ethics-commission.net
As the minimal laws I would recommend citizens learn in order to
exercise and enforce equal rights and authority as government.

 

[HUGGY]

The Right To Bear Arms

I would prefer that we arm bears.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, only you decide if you are willing to concede your inalienable rights.

NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights.

Have you conceded your inalienable right to kill people yet?

? frigidweirdo
To kill someone violates their free will, freedom of choice, or free exercise of religion
where they believe they have the right to live. That is against their First Amendment
rights which indirectly protect the right to life as a belief, as well as right to choose,
not to mention their right to assemble in peace and to petition to redress grievances.
If I deny the right to protest and petition for a different outcome they consent to,
I'd also be violating First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection of the laws.

To use arms to defend laws or for defense, there is the Constitutional principle of
"due process of law" -- if we don't violate this by forcing punishments on people or depriving them of liberty "without due process," then we won't have these problems to being with of using force for offense or defense.

If someone is killed or they are raped, robbed, assaulted, "punished or deprived of liberty without due process", or otherwise afflicted with any crime abuse or violation against their will, they are not being "equally protected" as the person inflicting their will on the other person. So that's not equal protection or equal justice. The only way to enforce Equal Protection
or Equal Justice Under Law is to PREVENT all abuses and crimes from violating someone's rights in the first place, i e, respect the CONSENT
of each person and redress ALL grievances and objections to make decisions by CONSENSUS
before carrying them out - by mutual AGREEMENT. I believe the spirit of laws and contracts is based on "consent of the governed" so that is the standard of law I support, personally and publicly, in order to enforce a consistent standard for people and for government for equality sake.

That is why I believe in mediation and conflict resolution to ensure
the highest possible success rate of reaching consensus (I'd say 80-98% agreement is possible in most cases
if you remove the time limit and give full free speech so people can redress all grievances freely and fully).

I am certainly not going to violate the same laws I seek to
enforce for myself and others equally as a Constitutionalist.

To kill someone, they'd have to agree to that, first of all, such as in police situations where the police are otherwise unable to stop the person from killing others. Sometimes they can disable the person without necessarily killing them, so I do prefer the least restrictive means that cause the least damage.

I am not a trained officer, and would likely die at the hand of someone acting that way before I could defend myself.

If they don't want to live they can choose to quit eating and die of starvation, choose to give up their will to live and die of depression etc. Choose not to ask for help, and choose to refuse any offer of help given to them.

It is not my place to hasten the process even if they do consent to die.
I would have them seek spiritual mental and medical counseling if they go down that route
as I believe most lives can be saved. I have found that even criminal illness can be cured if cases are caught early enough where the person receives full therapy and is detained or supervised to avoid harming themselves or others during rehab that can take 10-25 years if it is cureable at all in severe cases.

But if they choose not to listen and cut off all support, I can't force them to live any more than
I can force someone to die. I can offer help, support and better options but can't force people to choose them.

The only thing that can compel people to choose to do things beyond their will is God's will through prayer. So I learned to respect why Christians pray and hold the authority of Christ Jesus in the highest regard, because it has saved lives and healed people of mental, physical and even criminal illnesses that otherwise kill people.

The same prayers for forgiveness and healing that have "miraculously" saved lives from death from addiction, abuse, crime and disease
ALSO heal relationships and allow people to resolve conflicts we didn't think were possible either.

Because I am secular gentile, and most of my friends are more secular than I am,
I support medical research and scientific proof of how spiritual healing works to heal
physical, mental and even criminal illness to solve a lot of our problems with the current
mental health, criminal justice and political systems under govt. We can save more
money and more lives, but the research and development has to be established by
secular and scientific means. Currently the effective methods of spiritual healing that have been proven through limited studies are consistently practiced in faith based circles, but not yet understood by the general public.

Yes, I know all of that. I wasn't seriously suggesting there was a right to take someone's life.

What I was getting at more was, who decides what are "inalienable rights"? I mean, in the rest of the world, owning a gun is not an "inalienable right", but in the US people think it is. So who decides?

Dear frigidweirdo
I find people naturally agree on this, though they express it differently.
To make this clearly agreed upon, I do think we need a Constitutional conference
so everyone is on the same page with these concepts, and the language different groups use for the same principles.

A. I have found everyone I know believes in their own free will, right to consent and dissent.
Every human being I've met practices this every day. We defend our beliefs, interests and will naturally as human beings
with "free will reason and conscience"

This is a natural law, which I would put into legal terms as
* free exercise of religion (the reason I equate or expand this as free will is to treat all
people's beliefs equally under law who don't necessarily affiliate with an organized religion, so
the common factor I have found regardless of having a particular faith is one's consent or will)
* freedom of choice/right to choose/prochoice
* civil liberties
NOTE: Christians recognize that man's free will is limited to be within laws of nature/God
where we cannot will things outside our reality or power/control.
But generally recognize that God made man with free will, where this notion of
"Forgiveness" cannot be forced on people but must be chosen freely, where we AGREE to receive or grant forgiveness.

Indirectly this notion of free will is expressed as
* consent of the governed, or informed consent, as the basis of civil laws and contracts
* no taxation without representation (another way of saying people must consent to policies we pay for)

I don't know anyone who disagree with this, when it comes to what THAT person believes in,
consent or dissents.

The main problem I find is
* we use different language to express this
* we apply it more to one issue than another (ie whether we don't consent to
gun laws, abortion laws, health care laws, marriage laws, immigration laws)
* we defend our own rights and beliefs but don't always respect the same of our neighbors doing the same thing

We are all arguing for our right to consent and no taxation without representing us,
but we don't enforce this standard equally; we are selectively defending one issue while
attacking someone else's equal right to consent or dissent on another issue.

B. we Express this free will and our right to consent or dissent by other laws
* freedom of speech or of the press (spoken or written communications)
* right to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances (protesting or voicing objections especially)
* due process of law / equal access to democratic process of representation or legal defense
This area has been monopolized by privatized or politicized interests, which results
in legal and legislative "bullying" to abuse "greater force" to overpower the opposition or dissension.

Again, everyone I know naturally invokes and exercises their
rights to defense, to petition and seek due process by
"freedom of speech, or of the press" as natural law that all human beings follow as part of our collective social behavior
and growth toward democratic self-government for sustainable peace and justice.

Every human being I've ever met was striving for peace/security and freedom/justice by their terms
to feel secure. So all natural rights stem from this inherent will in people, and how they express it in society.

C. Some areas where people disagree on what is natural rights and what is political/depending on govt
1. right to bear arms and right to vote
I say these are partially dependent on the govt system and whether people are defending the law.
Where people protest these rights is where they fear people seek to abuse them without check for criminal purposes
and therefore demand greater regulation to prevent abuse.
2. right to life and right to health care
Again, people disagree to what degree govt can or cannot regulate or impose these.
From abortion to the death penalty, euthanasia and suicide, I've just about heard it all.
Even the right to homicide without punishment, yes I've heard and talked to people regarding beliefs in that degree of freedom.
3. right to marriage, to livable housing and work conditions
This gets into areas where people don't agree between rights and privileges,
govt duty and free market, state vs. federal govt.

I believe we are reaching a level of self-governance where we should host
Constitutional conferences and decide where to draw the line between
public and private, which may vary from one region or state to the next.

Some may still depend on federal govt, but some populations or groups
may be ready to take on self-govt, or invest in private organizations to handle social programs
and not run these through govt.

The more we reward people, groups or states with tax breaks for taking on responsibilities
for managing social and educational programs locally, the less burden on federal govt, and the more the central
govt can focus on national security and emergency/disasters, while letting citizens handle
the mundane level of social programs locally.

Especially in areas we don't agree on, we may need to delegate these by party or by
groups which do share the same beliefs, and not impose that publicly through govt except
where it affects public safety and national security on a global scale.

Surely what is needed is kids being taught this stuff in school. Then most people would be on the same page.

 

[emilynghiem]

No, only you decide if you are willing to concede your inalienable rights.

Have you conceded your inalienable right to kill people yet?

? frigidweirdo
To kill someone violates their free will, freedom of choice, or free exercise of religion
where they believe they have the right to live. That is against their First Amendment
rights which indirectly protect the right to life as a belief, as well as right to choose,
not to mention their right to assemble in peace and to petition to redress grievances.
If I deny the right to protest and petition for a different outcome they consent to,
I'd also be violating First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection of the laws.

To use arms to defend laws or for defense, there is the Constitutional principle of
"due process of law" -- if we don't violate this by forcing punishments on people or depriving them of liberty "without due process," then we won't have these problems to being with of using force for offense or defense.

If someone is killed or they are raped, robbed, assaulted, "punished or deprived of liberty without due process", or otherwise afflicted with any crime abuse or violation against their will, they are not being "equally protected" as the person inflicting their will on the other person. So that's not equal protection or equal justice. The only way to enforce Equal Protection
or Equal Justice Under Law is to PREVENT all abuses and crimes from violating someone's rights in the first place, i e, respect the CONSENT
of each person and redress ALL grievances and objections to make decisions by CONSENSUS
before carrying them out - by mutual AGREEMENT. I believe the spirit of laws and contracts is based on "consent of the governed" so that is the standard of law I support, personally and publicly, in order to enforce a consistent standard for people and for government for equality sake.

That is why I believe in mediation and conflict resolution to ensure
the highest possible success rate of reaching consensus (I'd say 80-98% agreement is possible in most cases
if you remove the time limit and give full free speech so people can redress all grievances freely and fully).

I am certainly not going to violate the same laws I seek to
enforce for myself and others equally as a Constitutionalist.

To kill someone, they'd have to agree to that, first of all, such as in police situations where the police are otherwise unable to stop the person from killing others. Sometimes they can disable the person without necessarily killing them, so I do prefer the least restrictive means that cause the least damage.

I am not a trained officer, and would likely die at the hand of someone acting that way before I could defend myself.

If they don't want to live they can choose to quit eating and die of starvation, choose to give up their will to live and die of depression etc. Choose not to ask for help, and choose to refuse any offer of help given to them.

It is not my place to hasten the process even if they do consent to die.
I would have them seek spiritual mental and medical counseling if they go down that route
as I believe most lives can be saved. I have found that even criminal illness can be cured if cases are caught early enough where the person receives full therapy and is detained or supervised to avoid harming themselves or others during rehab that can take 10-25 years if it is cureable at all in severe cases.

But if they choose not to listen and cut off all support, I can't force them to live any more than
I can force someone to die. I can offer help, support and better options but can't force people to choose them.

The only thing that can compel people to choose to do things beyond their will is God's will through prayer. So I learned to respect why Christians pray and hold the authority of Christ Jesus in the highest regard, because it has saved lives and healed people of mental, physical and even criminal illnesses that otherwise kill people.

The same prayers for forgiveness and healing that have "miraculously" saved lives from death from addiction, abuse, crime and disease
ALSO heal relationships and allow people to resolve conflicts we didn't think were possible either.

Because I am secular gentile, and most of my friends are more secular than I am,
I support medical research and scientific proof of how spiritual healing works to heal
physical, mental and even criminal illness to solve a lot of our problems with the current
mental health, criminal justice and political systems under govt. We can save more
money and more lives, but the research and development has to be established by
secular and scientific means. Currently the effective methods of spiritual healing that have been proven through limited studies are consistently practiced in faith based circles, but not yet understood by the general public.

Yes, I know all of that. I wasn't seriously suggesting there was a right to take someone's life.

What I was getting at more was, who decides what are "inalienable rights"? I mean, in the rest of the world, owning a gun is not an "inalienable right", but in the US people think it is. So who decides?

Dear frigidweirdo
I find people naturally agree on this, though they express it differently.
To make this clearly agreed upon, I do think we need a Constitutional conference
so everyone is on the same page with these concepts, and the language different groups use for the same principles.

A. I have found everyone I know believes in their own free will, right to consent and dissent.
Every human being I've met practices this every day. We defend our beliefs, interests and will naturally as human beings
with "free will reason and conscience"

This is a natural law, which I would put into legal terms as
* free exercise of religion (the reason I equate or expand this as free will is to treat all
people's beliefs equally under law who don't necessarily affiliate with an organized religion, so
the common factor I have found regardless of having a particular faith is one's consent or will)
* freedom of choice/right to choose/prochoice
* civil liberties
NOTE: Christians recognize that man's free will is limited to be within laws of nature/God
where we cannot will things outside our reality or power/control.
But generally recognize that God made man with free will, where this notion of
"Forgiveness" cannot be forced on people but must be chosen freely, where we AGREE to receive or grant forgiveness.

Indirectly this notion of free will is expressed as
* consent of the governed, or informed consent, as the basis of civil laws and contracts
* no taxation without representation (another way of saying people must consent to policies we pay for)

I don't know anyone who disagree with this, when it comes to what THAT person believes in,
consent or dissents.

The main problem I find is
* we use different language to express this
* we apply it more to one issue than another (ie whether we don't consent to
gun laws, abortion laws, health care laws, marriage laws, immigration laws)
* we defend our own rights and beliefs but don't always respect the same of our neighbors doing the same thing

We are all arguing for our right to consent and no taxation without representing us,
but we don't enforce this standard equally; we are selectively defending one issue while
attacking someone else's equal right to consent or dissent on another issue.

B. we Express this free will and our right to consent or dissent by other laws
* freedom of speech or of the press (spoken or written communications)
* right to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances (protesting or voicing objections especially)
* due process of law / equal access to democratic process of representation or legal defense
This area has been monopolized by privatized or politicized interests, which results
in legal and legislative "bullying" to abuse "greater force" to overpower the opposition or dissension.

Again, everyone I know naturally invokes and exercises their
rights to defense, to petition and seek due process by
"freedom of speech, or of the press" as natural law that all human beings follow as part of our collective social behavior
and growth toward democratic self-government for sustainable peace and justice.

Every human being I've ever met was striving for peace/security and freedom/justice by their terms
to feel secure. So all natural rights stem from this inherent will in people, and how they express it in society.

C. Some areas where people disagree on what is natural rights and what is political/depending on govt
1. right to bear arms and right to vote
I say these are partially dependent on the govt system and whether people are defending the law.
Where people protest these rights is where they fear people seek to abuse them without check for criminal purposes
and therefore demand greater regulation to prevent abuse.
2. right to life and right to health care
Again, people disagree to what degree govt can or cannot regulate or impose these.
From abortion to the death penalty, euthanasia and suicide, I've just about heard it all.
Even the right to homicide without punishment, yes I've heard and talked to people regarding beliefs in that degree of freedom.
3. right to marriage, to livable housing and work conditions
This gets into areas where people don't agree between rights and privileges,
govt duty and free market, state vs. federal govt.

I believe we are reaching a level of self-governance where we should host
Constitutional conferences and decide where to draw the line between
public and private, which may vary from one region or state to the next.

Some may still depend on federal govt, but some populations or groups
may be ready to take on self-govt, or invest in private organizations to handle social programs
and not run these through govt.

The more we reward people, groups or states with tax breaks for taking on responsibilities
for managing social and educational programs locally, the less burden on federal govt, and the more the central
govt can focus on national security and emergency/disasters, while letting citizens handle
the mundane level of social programs locally.

Especially in areas we don't agree on, we may need to delegate these by party or by
groups which do share the same beliefs, and not impose that publicly through govt except
where it affects public safety and national security on a global scale.

Surely what is needed is kids being taught this stuff in school. Then most people would be on the same page.

Yes, right now I've been busy just trying to get adults on the same page.
If we don't stop the political bullying over this, who is going to be
in any position to teach kids to follow rules and quit bullying?

 

[emilynghiem]

The Right To Bear Arms

I would prefer that we arm bears.

ha ha HUGGY
And I'd rather that we bear hugging
instead of hugging bears!

 

[emilynghiem]

NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights.

Your devotion to idiots like Hilary is the greatest threat to the rights of REAL GUN OWNERS

Well, Obama sent gun sales to new record highs.
Maybe Hillary will prove to have a similar effect.

The same can be said of whether LGBT or Christian opposing beliefs
are more a threat to each other, or they actually strengthen the support for the opposing camp
the more they fight. (That happened with DOMA and BANS on same sex marriage,
that had the opposite effect of providing legal leverage to push for marriage equality that won in court.)

 

[hunarcy]

It's not surprising that the Prog-Left doesn't grok the 2nd Amendment. Their worldview is is consumed with Group Identity; hence they do not understand that the Bill of Rights is designed to protect INDIVIDUAL Rights.

Does he grok it?

And NaziCons eat it up. Lies only matter to them - when spoken by a Democrat. Funny...

Funny how Democrats excuse lies and say, "no one believes campaign promises, but get OUTRAGED when they find a comment from a republican that might be inaccurate.

 

[candycorn]

It's not surprising that the Prog-Left doesn't grok the 2nd Amendment. Their worldview is is consumed with Group Identity; hence they do not understand that the Bill of Rights is designed to protect INDIVIDUAL Rights.

Does he grok it?

And NaziCons eat it up. Lies only matter to them - when spoken by a Democrat. Funny...

Funny how Democrats excuse lies and say, "no one believes campaign promises, but get OUTRAGED when they find a comment from a republican that might be inaccurate.

Inaccurate?

Drumpf likes banning assault weapons. That is a quote from him when he wasn’t trying to get anyone’s votes…. In other words; it is what he really feels.

Drumpf likes a longer waiting period. That is a quote from him when he wasn’t trying to get anyone’s votes…. In other words; it is what he really feels.

There is no question about lies or inaccuracy; Small fractions of men are are entitled to their opinions too.

You don’t have to vote for him if you don’t like what he stands for.

 

[emilynghiem]

It's not surprising that the Prog-Left doesn't grok the 2nd Amendment. Their worldview is is consumed with Group Identity; hence they do not understand that the Bill of Rights is designed to protect INDIVIDUAL Rights.

Does he grok it?

And NaziCons eat it up. Lies only matter to them - when spoken by a Democrat. Funny...

Funny how Democrats excuse lies and say, "no one believes campaign promises, but get OUTRAGED when they find a comment from a republican that might be inaccurate.

Dear hunarcy Can you IMAGINE if the laws on false advertising applied to political campaign ads?
When companies make mistakes in ads, and are forced to either fill orders at that price or face financial penalties per incident,
people have been known to cash in and take advantage.

What if taxpayers actually called political leaders and parties on their own printed and published advertising?
We could collect enough in damages to pay off the debts charged to citizens. Look at the trillions in spending on war efforts alone.
If we argued for "misrepresentation" and demanded refunds of war contracts to be reimbursed to taxpayers,
we'd have enough credits to rebuild the health care system and other govt reforms without raising any new taxes.

 

[hunarcy]

It's not surprising that the Prog-Left doesn't grok the 2nd Amendment. Their worldview is is consumed with Group Identity; hence they do not understand that the Bill of Rights is designed to protect INDIVIDUAL Rights.

Does he grok it?

And NaziCons eat it up. Lies only matter to them - when spoken by a Democrat. Funny...

Funny how Democrats excuse lies and say, "no one believes campaign promises, but get OUTRAGED when they find a comment from a republican that might be inaccurate.

Dear hunarcy Can you IMAGINE if the laws on false advertising applied to political campaign ads?
When companies make mistakes in ads, and are forced to either fill orders at that price or face financial penalties per incident,
people have been known to cash in and take advantage.

What if taxpayers actually called political leaders and parties on their own printed and published advertising?
We could collect enough in damages to pay off the debts charged to citizens. Look at the trillions in spending on war efforts alone.
If we argued for "misrepresentation" and demanded refunds of war contracts to be reimbursed to taxpayers,
we'd have enough credits to rebuild the health care system and other govt reforms without raising any new taxes.

well, of course there would have to be laws in force to collect such settlements and you KNOW the politicians exempt themselves from every annoying law.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights.

Whatever the fuck an "NRA Gun Nutter" might mean to Chief Running Bullshit.

As usual, it appears that Dorkhota confuses supporters of the Second Amendment with "nuts."