|
Quote:
I don't have any evidence for this, only what I've found via 5 minutes research. There is no point linking to the websites because they're probably part of the government conspiracy. Hood |
Quote:
Hood |
Quote:
"I want to do what I want to do especially if I am paying for it." All societies have limits to personal freedom. The right of an individual to do what they want is balanced against the potential harm that that individual doing what they want could cause other people. So, I may want to get totally drunk and then drive home in my car. Society says I can't. Or I might want to get off my head with a certain cocktail of drugs paid for out of my own hard-earned cash. Society says I can't. There are lots of limits. None of us is totally free. Same with the guns (or heavier weaponry) issue. Just because someone WANTS it doesn't mean that it's sensible or desirable from a wider perspective for them to have it. What about the nukes? ;) |
Quote:
I'm not happy with the government of this country. I disagree with a whole host of their policies and I don't like the way the country is going. There are many things i would like changed. Personally I think most of us are little more than serfs now anyway - we get the opportunity to work in order to pay an over-inflated mortgage, while the economy is run primarily so that a bunch of investment bankers have enough chips to enable them to retire on their fat bonuses. But whether or not I own a gun makes absolutely no difference to anything that is really important. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
In pre-school children are taught that even though they have their rights, with them come responsibilites. Now even though we hope people will choose to meet their responsibilites if they fail to do so those responsibilities will be forced upon them by the full weight of the systrem (law culture and social expectaions). Now my original comment was light hearted dig at the youth of today (you can tell by the :wink: ) who are all (without exception) G-D Tree Hugging Neo-Hippies and could all do with decent haircuts and a good couple of years in National service. All your comments merely re-enforce my views. ;) |
Quote:
It's obvious that you have some personal issues with guns, maybe like Bewolf you had some shocking experience when you were young? :confused: I really can't quite understand what sort of twisted, double-standard, denial-based logic one has to apply to be such a contradiction in terms. Using a war simulator and still thinking that the world is better without guns, go figure! |
Quote:
That the gun restriction that was applied was just a political propaganda job to harvest the favour of the public opinion, whilst the real problem was a totally different one, the fact that there was no solid policy in plan to assign gun licenses whilst making sure that the people who applied didn't have any mental problems? Come on... We are serfs indeed, and they treat us like we're utter imbeciles, people are not able to take on their responsibilities anymore, nanny-State will take care of us, take dangerous (for them) toys off our hands and let us play their games.. it doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to understand that, you only need to pay some attention to the politics and have some knowledge of history, but both these topics are boring for the majority (and our self-righteous friends here). The funniest thing is that they really believe in what they say, they really think that nothing bad will ever happen to them, cos it's not possible, and even when the evidence strikes them on the face, like in 2005, it only mattered and had a meaning if you were directly hit by those attacks... sheep, nothing more, nothing less.... |
Quote:
I don't think you have. Maybe go onto youtube and look it up, let the youtubers explain it to you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2r1J...eature=related This act was signed into law |
Quote:
I suspect personal crime is already a problem and the crooks do have guns. Good luck calling the cops, they'll sit down the street and wait for the shooting to stop. Then they'll herd up all the neighbors and anyone in the proximity hoping to get the shooter. That is what they did in the USA at Columbine and Aurora. The cops sat outside at the most recent massacre in Aurora for over 20 minutes just waiting for the shooter to run out of bullets. Cops aren't cowards, they are just folks with guns that don't want to get killed. They must figure it's your tough luck to be on the target range of some nut job. Jane Fonda was a traitor. You need to read the account in the link I posted. She wasn't right about anything. She gave aid and comfort to the enemy. That by definition is a traitor. The Vietnam could have been won, but the problems came from politicians. America pilots were forbidden to strike SAMs that were being onloaded and stockpiled in Hanoi harbor. Those SAMs would be firing upon our pilots within just a few days. The military were forbidden from striking Michelin rubber plantations and the VC used those plantations as safer harbor. Think on that next time you buy tires for your car. Those are just two examples of the counter-productive way the US government wanted the Vietnam war to proceed. America had the resources to do the job on Vietnam. It was the politicians and the other rats in our government that caused over 58,000 men to die, not counting those maimed for life. They didn't want to win that war, they wanted to prolong it and keep pumping enormous sums of money into the Military industrial complex. The US was involved in Vietnam over 16 years. Same story for Iraq, Afghanistan and soon to be Syria or Iran, if they have their way. Don't be too self assured, it does seem UK politicians get the military involved with US every time in those little skirmishes that last for years and years. Afterall, it is justification for the lousy wars when more than a few countries are involved, even if they each only furnish 40 men to fight. |
Quote:
|
nearmiss, are you alright? I mean sincerely, are you o.k. mate? Not on any sort of medication? Feeling any sort of strain? Seriously not trying to be a wise-ass here but you seem to...well, ramble all over the place when you post these days.
Make sure you're not over-doing things o.k? Try sitting down more. |
ok, let's see here:
Over five thousand years ago, Moses said to the children of Israel, "Pick up your shovels, mount your asses and camels, and I will lead you to the Promised Land." Nearly 75 years ago, (when welfare was introduced) Roosevelt said, "Lay down your shovels, sit on your asses, and light up a Camel, this is the Promised Land." Today, Congress has stolen your shovel, taxed your asses, raised the price of Camels, and mortgaged the Promised Land! I was so depressed last night thinking about health care plans, the economy, the wars, lost jobs, savings, Social Security, retirement funds, GUN CONTROL, ets., I called a suicide hotline. I had to press 1 for English. I was connected to a call center in Pakistan. I told them I was suicidal. They got excited and asked if I could drive a tuck....... Folks, we're screwed......you better have a gun! How do I feel about gun control? Come break into my house and find out. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
what you describe isnt freedom...just another misconception perpetuated by the media.... see in a free society unless you infringe or encroach on the rights of others you aught to be left alone.... |
Quote:
THE only real responsibility or obligation you have in a free society is to NOT encroach or infringe on the rights of others, also to follow through with what ever legal contracts you have knowingly entered into.... their is no preconditions you must meet or other obligations you must fulfill in order to be allowed to exercise your rights or to gain your status as a free individual....again your freedom is innate...its creator endowed.... you seem to be the opposit of "freedom loving" i mean you are even critical of the way people choose to look... i mean seriously.... i mean so many people here have NO IDEA on the principles of a truly free society...most of you lack any historical understanding as well...i am blown away by the misconceptions posted here in this thread, and the people ignorant about something they should be cherishing, and that is their freedom (or for some here, the potential freedom that they could have, should they choose to exercise it, regardless of what some law says) |
[QUOTE=kendo65;451119]
Personally I think most of us are little more than serfs now anyway - we get the opportunity to work in order to pay an over-inflated mortgage, while the economy is run primarily so that a bunch of investment bankers have enough chips to enable them to retire on their fat bonuses. [QUOTE] Well, we never really did leave the feudal system... we only got a few concessions. Do a comparison of "society" to a battery hen farm, and I think you'll be in for a shock (current working class are the hens) |
Quote:
wars in this day and age are not meant to be won they are simply meant to enrich the military industrial complex, the same one that President Eisenhower warned us about. |
Quote:
A lot of the debate in this thread talks about the constitutional right of Americans to bear arms. Good on them. With that right is a huge amount of responsibility to see that those guns are not used for purpose that is not intended by their constitution. How much responsibility? Responsibility to their faimilies that the guns are stored in appropriate mannor. Their children’s lives are at stake if the guns are stored inappropriately and the kids get access to them (gun safety education is really important). Responsibility to their Neighbors. Their neighbor’s lives are at stake if they go arseing about and firing their guns in an inappropriate manner. Responsibility to the Law. Correct me if I'm wrong here guys from the USA, but I’d assume if you go walking down the street waving your assault rifle around firing indiscriminately you could expect a bullet in the head from your friendly law enforcement officer? The freedom your talking about belongs on hippy communes and if it was wide spread it would quickly degenerate into anarchy. Simple as that. (Note that the 'Freedom' in Hippy communities was actually invented by old male hippies to get into young female hippies pants, but that is a completely different issue!) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
just cuz you cant infringe on the rights of others dosent mean you are not free...in fact you cant have it any other way....this should be self evident...apparently not for you and honestly you talk about hippies like a moronic red neck, akin to some south park parody...no one cares about hippies this isnt what this conversation is about....and most hippies are socialists...but of course someone like you HAS to bring up hippies to POPO the idea of real freedom, even though it has nothing to do with it.... |
Was thinking I might purchase the game soon but I'm not sure I would be comfortable in a community full of America hating Euros.
Good job losing them a sale. Who committed the worst mass shooting in recent History? Here's a hint, it wasn't an American and it wasn't in America |
Was that the worst mass shooting where even a highly trained high ranking military trainer/ shooter said, he couldn't pull that kind of accuracy off, yet the "shooter" had no training? The same one where "the rifle" was presented to court built from library spares, because the original had been breech blown? The same where a (high capacity) meat wagon was placed on standby weeks beforehand, and removed weeks later?
The same one where the jury didn't get to sit, yet the chap is locked away in isolation? The same one where a politician, ten years earlier said, "there will never be gun control in this country, until there is a high casualty mass shooting in _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ "? and another high profile pollie was placed into a bullet proof vest to publically announce the gun laws (in supposed) fear of the owners all going berko? |
Quote:
I'ld expect there would be a lot of Red necks out there that would be highly offended by your remarks comparing me to them. |
Quote:
And I can distinguish between a game and reality. Go figure. @ Jimson8 - you misunderstand. Don't look on this as Euros versus USA it's just a polarisation of views that are best characterised by those from Europe (well some of them) and the USA (well some of them). Hood |
Chinese teen kills nine in knife attack
http://news.yahoo.com/chinese-teen-k...102629246.html :rolleyes: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The drunk driving example potentially impinges on other's well-being, but taking drugs in the privacy of my own home bought with my own money? What right does anyone have to say i can't? (please note I'm not necessarily advocating doing either of these things - obviously just used as an example ) |
Quote:
But a bit short of tyrannical still. |
Quote:
The game however is still 'maturing', so maybe best to save your money for a bit. ;) |
Quote:
Quote:
Jimson8, The game deserves a look at if your into flight sims, it deserves a place on every flight sim addicts SSD. Participation in this forum however, is completely optional. Cheers! |
It's improving all right. But still leaving me cold I'm afraid. I'm really looking at 6 -12 months. Sorry.
But let's not start talking about flight-sims around here. ;) -------- I edited my last post. I don't really feel too happy about being unhappy about the game, but that's how it is unfortunately. I'm trying to take a long-term perspective :) |
Quote:
Please don't report my post to the moderators! ;) |
Quote:
how about dont drive recklessly drunk or not.... see they use drunk driving laws to set up check points which are otherwise supposed to be illegal...but they keep making laws that they tell us is to keep us safe and is for our own good...but its just to grab more power and do what would be illegal things under color of law.... heck ive driven while i was extremely fatigued and it was ALOT more scary than drunk driving...at least drunk driving your eyes arent closing up on you....but i guess thats ok, even thought its just as dangerous... also no one is supposed to have ANY say on what you consume or put in your your body....but in your system of govt (slavery) we cant...cuz they see us as animals....can animals choose what they consume and put into their body... no someone else does for them....and it seems the same is happening to us.. a guy name Alfred Adask actually fought the govt on the language used were it stated that man was in fact an animal (the text of the law read, "man or other animals" which essentially states that man is an animal) http://adask.wordpress.com/2008/06/1...her-animals-1/ " the power of our case is our recognition that the federal and Texas laws regarding food and drugs presume man to be an “animal”. This presumption is anathema to fundamental principles of the “Declaration of Independence” and of the Jewish, Christian and (probably) Muslim faiths. This “man or other animals” presumption is blasphemous, absolutely contrary to any concept of religious freedom and a violation of the 1st Amendment’s prohibition against the “establishment of religion”." "The government deems the people to be animals. In doing so, government lays the foundation for treating us as slaves, “human resources” and even exposing the sovereign people of The United States of America to genocide. Really. The issue is of explosive power because when President Nixon initiated the War on Drugs in A.D. 1971, he based that war on a definition of drugs that presumes man to be an animal. Nixon’s War on Drugs laid the foundation for the modern police state wherein the majority of police activity is based on pursuing people using or distributing drugs. That police state gave rise to the American “prison-industrial complex” that is the biggest prison complex in the world, and jails a higher percentage of Americans than any other legal system in the world. In our “Brave New” prison-industrial complex at least 70% of the prisoners are there for drug-related crimes." also lol saw your comment....the NDAA IS tyranny....no matter how you cut it....to say otherwise is denial... |
Quote:
if calling your statements for what they are is a personal attack then so be it....its the truth...you bring up hippies like a south park episode doing a parody of red necks.... also i dont care if anyone is offended its irrelevant....their is no "right to NOT be offended" even though alot of people think their is.... |
Quote:
Great Britain's Peter Wilson just won Olympic Gold for the Mens double trap competition. He is also the current World record holder by a country mile, "Blowing away" the competition (lol) in Tucson, Arizona at the World Championships this year. GB has always had great shooters. Finns are Ok, but the Swedes, Italians and Russians are better. The Russians blow the US away in World Championship records, but the US have a higher Olympic haul. Still, when you calculate "per capita" awesomeness (to the OP), the US are nowhere near the best shooters. That would be the Swedes as far as Olympics are concerned. Fact. :) Just thought I'd at least attempt to get back to the original subject matter, before everyone started talking drivel. :) Just read about the 7 (to date) killed at a Sikh Temple Massacre by some US gun nutter though; probably some web footed, banjo duelling red neck who thought they were "Muzzies" (as if that's an excuse), and he was protecting "Freedom". :rolleyes: A police officer he shot several times is also critically injured, and may not survive. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19138754 Never met a Sikh person I didn't like btw, usually lovely people who keep themselves to themselves. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
You can also be completely "sane" and integrated into a community and still murder e.g. Dr Harold Shipman. I once had an interesting jurisprudence argument with the hypothesis being that it is impossible to murder. The raionale was that to murder someone was so far removed form normal sciety that the killer had to be insane, therefore it could not be murder. Hood ps the P51 footage was underwhelming I thought. I thought it'd be louder though maybe the noise was turned down. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
America as a country ? ... well its probably good to compare the basic roots of German National Socialism with the tenets of the American right ... German Nazism was characterized by: - a very strong appeal to patriotism and national pride (tea party) - an almost paranoid fear of communism (sound familiar?) - religious intolerance (do not be Sikh or Muslim in the US) - a strong anti-liberal stance (tea party again) - racism ( enough said) |
Quote:
in essence communism is where the rights of the individual take a back seat to the "good" of the collective, and the govt decides what is "good" thus anyone who values freedom should rightly fear communism.... |
Quote:
hold on a license... for what ??? last time i checked you dont need a license to exercise your rights.... remember a license is govt authorization to do something that would OTHERWISE be illegal...you dont need a license to exercise a constitutional right.... but im sure one of you control freaks is going to tell me im wrong and that in order to protect the group we must infringe on the rights of the individual.... "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"...and im not talking about where the devil lives...the road to a living hell is how it should read..... |
Quote:
Again, my point is that here people really think that owning a gun equates to being a timebomb, but even before the gun bans the accidents involving guns were extremely rare, people just bought into the Government fear campaign and found a scapegoat to social problem that they don't want (or simply can't) address with efficacy. The scare tactic, playing strong on the gun massacres that happened, did most of the work, so much that people didn't wanna know about guns anymore, it became a social no-no like eating veal... And there is so much deliberate misinformation on the subject anyway: you can still get yourself a shotgun, a rimfire semiauto (they sell Car15 in .22, EXTREMELY portable and lethal) or bolt action rifle: an Enfield Jungle Carabine can hold 10 rounds of .303 and is very portable, how is that less lethal than a Garand or a pistol I still have to understand.. Don't you really see the hypocrisy of the legislation? :confused: |
Quote:
In NSW (Australia) where I live, swords, bows (including compound ones) and rifles are all perfectly legal but may require a license. Concealable weapons such as flick blades and handguns and weapons with silencers are not OK. Assault rifles, pump action shotguns, crossbows, morning stars, nunchukas and maces are also illegal. In adjoining Victoria, even owning a sword requires a license however in Queensland you can wander around with a mace or morning star and no-one cares. |
Quote:
its not hypocrisy at all they dont care about public safety, they go incrementally until the people can no longer defend it self from determined criminals or the state... you know first bans on automatic weapons seems reasonable, and then next its bans on assault rifles and then any kind of weapon the military uses and all these seemingly reasonable things to the common person, will eventually come full circle making all non muzzle loading fire arms illegal... that is why ANY attempt to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, is unacceptable... (not just muzzle loading muskets or hand guns or bolt action or semi auto or automatic, but all arms) with out looking at the law i seem to recall that the rights of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. it does not read "can be infringed a little bit incrementally" |
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946 "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24 |
Quote:
It seems a bit odd to me that you're relying on provisions granted by what was then in effect the government of the day, yet complain when the government of these days wants to restrict it. Times and people change, well some of them. Government's make laws and governments can change the constitution. All it needs is the appropriate public or political will to make it happen. That's one of the the things about living in a democracy - sometimes you have to accept what other people want. Hood |
Quote:
|
@ Hood:
The US is a republic not a democracy. The Republic is a costitutionally-limited form of government protecting the rights of the individual. The Constitution is the fundamental law of the land. It can be changed only thru the amendment process. It's a little more involved than a 51%-49% majority that would suffice in a democracy. |
Quote:
Some of what you say is correct, at least down here in OZ (though I don't know how it works in say, the US or UK) but the motion to change the constitution (in Oz) has to go to a referrendum, (public vote). Government gets to word the changes, and at least, its probably why not many changes to the constitution down here has gone through. Citizen Initiated Referrendum was done away with through legislation. Quote:
It goes back a bit earlier than that to when hemp was outlawed in the US and countries growing selling it faced aid denial if they didn't fall in line... and even earlier before that, to "the prohibition" (of alcohol - US) |
Quote:
Does the UK define driving as a right? --Outlaw. |
its decried as "a privilige" here in Oz as well... its just government trying to reinforce its "control"
|
Quote:
BTW. good site to view laws and regulations, including interesting stats, in different countries, e.g Sweden http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/sweden |
Quote:
|
Yeah, but many perceive it as a right, so much that now the government is evaluating the donation of cars under the welfare scheme, if people demonstrate that in order to get a job they need to commute by car..
|
Quote:
Once again, the government of an alleged democracy decided to remove semiautos and pistols without even bothering to have a referendum for it, that's what regimes do, yet the sheep people here take it and actually vouch for it, in the illusion it will make their streets safer. |
Quote:
nor are they or should they be in the business of taking away creator endowed rights... DUDE i have already stated this ONCE we DO NOT live in a democracy...the whims of the majority have NO bearing on my innate rights and freedom....the majority can not decide all of a sudden to take the rights of the minority away...and even if such a law were to pass, it would be null and void... |
Quote:
most of us here are simply travelers, NOT drivers....drivers in the language used in the law means someone engaged in commerce...a truck DRIVER, a taxi DRIVER.... if im driving to work or driving my children to some athletic event i am not a driver i am a traveler....and the right to freely travel is a common law right... this driving/traveler issue only made more complicated with DMV and people voluntarily entering in a contract with the dmv by getting licensed....thus you are agreeing to put yourself under the jurisdiction of their laws.. CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579. CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125. Title 18 USC 31: "Motor vehicle" means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property. "Used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. This definition of "motor vehicle" does not include "private motor Vehicles" as distinguished from the 18 USC 31 "motor vehicle" definition and as was clearly distinguished in Bowman vs City of Kansas City. As a consequence to this fact, this court has not addressed the issue we promote on property rights. |
Frankly im disgusted by all the people who are so quick to throw away their creator endowed, innate rights away....
im surprised that you people would want to give MORE power to the govt and you are fine with asking permission and jumping through hoops to exercise your rights Where a state issues a permission, it is reasonable that such permission can be revoked by issuer for any reason it chooses. i find it kinda humerous that the ONE person talking about unrestricted constitutional freedom and liberty is the ONLY one citing law (that would be me) while all the slaves and subjects are the ones going on about how we need to regulate peoples innate freedom (when i already posted laws on why doing such a thing is ILLEGAL) why cant you people handle freedom?? do you lack personal responsibility?? do you lack dignity?? do you really want a world where you have to ASK govt for permission to exercise your rights ?? permission that can be revoked at anytime or simply not grated for any reason ??? because i have news for you that is NO WHERE NEAR what freedom is... |
Why a rational individual would voluntarily consent to give up his or her natural freedom to obtain the benefits of political order.
The social contract is an intellectual construct that typically addresses two questions: first, that of the origin of society, and second, the question of the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual. Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their rights. The question of the relation between natural and legal rights, therefore, is often an aspect of social contract theory. It has been going on for a long time. |
Quote:
ROFL doublethink much?? so we give up our freedom and submit to PROTECT our rights ??? really?? how does that work... the ONLY social contract that i agree to is to not infringe or encroach on the rights of others, and to follow all contracts i knowingly and voluntarily enter into... |
Quote:
Creator endowed rights? This presupposes the existence of a "creator" doesn't it? As I'm not religious this kinda passes me by. There are no natural "rights" at all - there is no supreme being saying "Thou shalt have the ability to munch popcorn on a Saturday." At least, not in my eyes. Now if you think a creator gave you "rights", and I say it/he/she etc didn't, that leaves a thorny problem doesn't it. On a reflective note I do sometimes wish that I had enough faith to justify a religion. But I don't. And you do live in a democracy, such as it it. If you feel so angry about it you can of course take your guns and march on the White House. I'll keep watching the news for it. As for von Pilsner's post, he got it pretty much right. Its a trade off between safety and order. Sure you can do whatever you like but then there is anarchy. Or you can conform with society's "rules" and accept restrictions for safety's sake. Simple really. Hood |
Quote:
wow yet another....misinformed sheep, that thinks that their rights are granted by govt.... the reason it says creator endowed rights (here we go again restating what i already said) means that it comes from an authority HIGHER than govt....your creator can be Allah, Jesus, Yahweh, your parents, who ever...... sorry but the highest LAW in MY land says otherwise....you are wrong...perhaps you are beholden to your govt and its whims but i am not.... lol and people keep saying that i live in a democracy....as if this notion of mob rule, and being subject to the whims of the majority is a good thing.... i guess if the majority vote to take your property, i guess that means you must submit.... democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner... why dont you post law and case law that proves your collectivist dogma....o wait i seem to be the only one who can do that.... if you rely on your govt to ALLOW you to exercise your innate rights or freedom then you have the status of a slave on the land, beholden to their master.... using actual case law to prove my point.... In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly "The state cannot diminish rights of the people." And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60, "Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void." our rights are innate meaning even the constitution DOES NOT grant them...our rights and our freedom come from an authority higher than govt....and would exist even if govt didnt.... |
Quote:
If you're taking the creator bit from... 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. ...then you must be gullible because you've accepted as truth what a bunch of guys in the 1700s said. If you can prove the existence of a "Creator" then fine, but I can't find anywhere written in the stars that there is any such thing as an unalienable right. There are no such rights except for those "granted" by the government of the day. The funniest thing is that you refer to it as a LAW when laws are what governments make. So far as guns are concerned, you probably don't even realise that the arms manufacturing lobby is one of the most powerful there is (they probably have more money and better able people than the government) and they're chip-chip-chipping away at you all the time. It seems to me you've been brainwashed, and that's worse than being a sheep. Prove that you have rights granted by a creator and not created by a bunch of guys in the 1700s that laid down rules how society should operate. You can't. I'd bet that when your rights are infringed by others that you bleat for help. Oh, and I think the constitution of the USA and the Bill of Rights are amazing things written by some extraordinary people, but they are not immutable. I'd like to re-visit this thread in 100 years. Hood ps Baaaaaah pps I love the case quotes. Who decides what the rights are? People of today or documents created in the 1700s? Who decides what the "plain and obvious principles of common right etc..." are? Right or wrong, it is fallacious to suggest that there are rights and freedoms coming from an authority higher than government. Whoever it/she/he is they haven't stepped in in Rwanda, Iraq, Afghaistan, USA, Nazi Germany, South Africa, Guantanemo Bay, the Soviet Union etc etc etc. But of course in those countries no such rights exist/ed when they were needed so that pokes a large hole through the Creator argument. |
The modern tendency towards Textualism is always a problem with dated legislation, it tends to encode and exaggerate drafting errors and is often used to endorse interpretations completely at odds with the original drafters intent.
|
Quote:
If you stop short at any point then there is a restriction and a limit. If there is a limit, who decides where it should be? I presume that you would agree that it would be crazy to allow individual private citizens to purchase and own nuclear weapons? Quote:
|
Quote:
its both the upside and downside of the judiciary With all this talk of "democracy" and "freedoms", I'm reminded of this quote... Apologies to the original author and for not remembering where I saw it, it could have been here: Democracy: Two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch Liberty: A well armed lamb contesting the outcome of the vote |
There is no inalienable right to own a grenade launcher, the grenade launcher is a construct of society and not a natural resource... Its manufacture, sale, and use can be legally restricted within a society as that society sees fit. Here is one of those restrictions: National Firearms Act part 26 U.S.C. 5845, 27 CFR 479.11
|
Quote:
ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 15AB Use of extrinsic material in the interpretation of an Act (1) Subject to subsection (3), in the interpretation of a provision of an Act, if any material not forming part of the Act is capable of assisting in the ascertainment of the meaning of the provision, consideration may be given to that material: (a) to confirm that the meaning of the provision is the ordinary meaning conveyed by the text of the provision taking into account its context in the Act and the purpose or object underlying the Act; or (b) to determine the meaning of the provision when: (i) the provision is ambiguous or obscure; or (ii) the ordinary meaning conveyed by the text of the provision taking into account its context in the Act and the purpose or object underlying the Act leads to a result that is manifestly absurd or is unreasonable. (2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the material that may be considered in accordance with that subsection in the interpretation of a provision of an Act includes: (a) all matters not forming part of the Act that are set out in the document containing the text of the Act as printed by the Government Printer; (b) any relevant report of a Royal Commission, Law Reform Commission, committee of inquiry or other similar body that was laid before either House of the Parliament before the time when the provision was enacted; (c) any relevant report of a committee of the Parliament or of either House of the Parliament that was made to the Parliament or that House of the Parliament before the time when the provision was enacted; (d) any treaty or other international agreement that is referred to in the Act; (e) any explanatory memorandum relating to the Bill containing the provision, or any other relevant document, that was laid before, or furnished to the members of, either House of the Parliament by a Minister before the time when the provision was enacted; (f) the speech made to a House of the Parliament by a Minister on the occasion of the moving by that Minister of a motion that the Bill containing the provision be read a second time in that House; (g) any document (whether or not a document to which a preceding paragraph applies) that is declared by the Act to be a relevant document for the purposes of this section; and (h) any relevant material in the Journals of the Senate, in the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives or in any official record of debates in the Parliament or either House of the Parliament. Subsection (1)(b)(ii) above would be quite relevant to this discussion. |
Quote:
the only people who are talking about democracy are those who are misinformed....also think you for the second part of the two wolves quote i never heard it before... |
Quote:
wow...lol so i guess not buying into the socialistic and collectivist dogma means im "brainwashed" because i want to enjoy the right to self determination i am "brainwashed" Freedom is innate because of the fact that human beings enjoy free will. and it has to do with natural law or common law, which is THOUSANDS of years old...(of course their is always an idiot who will say....well these laws are so old so it must not be relevant, to counter this all you have to do is point out many common laws such as those against murder or theft, those are also thousands of years old, much older than the constitution or declaration of independence) im talking to people who keep bringing up irrelevant topics and reasons why i should abandon freedom, for some false sense of security, or safety.... its clear that you people dont know how law works....its clear that you dont understand how dangerous it is making govt the ultimate authority, which you people think it has.... the govt gets its power from the consent of the governed, thus how can it EVER be higher than the people....people create government, thus govt is subservient to the people...however this idea has been bastardized by our own federal govt, certain elites quest for power...and now they have most of the foolish public believing that the govt needs to protect people from themselves and that we must abandon freedom in the name of a false sense of security.... also for the founders these truths that i am talking about were "self evident" back in the day...i guess this is no longer the case....i guess people now think that safety comes from waiving your rights to some perceived authority....all one has to do is look at history to see the pitfalls of this kind of philosophy... |
@ Galway...
you're correct, but as I offered; it is both the upside and downside of the judiciary. and you've reinforced that. An Act is written and (assuming) passed. Someone has application to have that challenged (tested) in court. That challenge is based on the wording of the Act being challenged The Judiciary bases their judgement of the challenge on the arguments presented for and against. (as well as any political/ social bias they may personally hold) If the Act is of a clear cut wording (most roads rules for instance)... it cannot be "interpreted". |
Quote:
As for theft and murder, is not criminalising them in itself a restriction of our "natural rights" to do as we see fit? Who decided that they were wrong? Any laws or rights are human constructs created to allow society to exist. The USA is lucky to have such laws and rights as they aren't by any stretch of the imagination world-wide. You've also supported von Pilsner's post in your comments about government. People have accepted the idea of government and their lives being controlled and so they participate in votes. They may be reluctant participants but they are still within the social construct of society. Once they are outside society, or outlawed, then criminal sanctions apply. From my own studies in the history of crime and punishment I think what we have now is far more benign. Safety comes from checks and balances, that's what the constitution is all about. Your society has been given rights to help you enjoy life, liberty etc. The government and the judiciary protects those rights. Sometimes they're at odds, sometimes they're together - checks and balances. Hood ps I'm a 12+ year qualified lawyer so I know how law works, though I'll be learning it until the day I die. Edit: Being a lawyer doesn't necessarily mean I'm infallible or more correct than anyone else (or rich, sadly), but it does mean that I'm not speaking from a position of ignorance. |
In the UK there are a number of interpretation methods e.g. the golden rule (modifying the words to prevent absurdities), literal (give the words their literal meaning), mischief rule (looking at the problem the law was trying to solve to decide how it should be applied) and the purposive rule (looking at the reason for the legislation and applying the interpretation accordingly).
This is possibly the foundation for the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 of Australia. I would research it out of curiosity but I feel my enthusiasm dripping away as I consider what lies ahead of me today. Time for coffee and biscuits... Hood |
Before it hits 50 pages.
5. Political and religious discussions are prohibited. http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=25163 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:19 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.