Lets make it simple

[worldtalker]

No attack, and I've been addressed with much more venom on many threads here and on other forums. Thick skin and clear thoughts make it easy.

I didn't attack the mentally ill, I'm from the south so I know about crazy. At least we don't hide it like the northerners do. As Lewis Grizzard once said: "We celebrate it."

Everyone has crazy people . . . mentally challenged for the PC folk . . . in their family tree. No biggie, and don't hold it against anyone. It's when folks go off the deep end to attack me that I remind them to take their meds. I don't care if it's pills or whiskey (my drug of choice, preferably a good sour mash like Jim Beam or Ezra Brooks) but I do advise to steer clear of the Everclear as it tends to make me mean.

Speak your peace Brother,met a lot of good mountain folk that thought that way in Cosby Tennessee,best place I Ever lived!!! 29 seasons,piiss off the porch and shoot to my hearts content,had a Park Ranger stop by on many an occasion and set a spell,what an arsonal he had in his 4x4, life saving mountain climbing gear,he was ready for ANYTHING.Grew my own too.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[bigscoop]

The real reason it is being debated so much lately, and here's the harsh reality to it all....."too many people claiming they hug democracy while they're busy telling everyone else how they want it to be." The very notion of them repeatedly doing this should tell you something about their misunderstanding of democracy. Truth is, the majority will decide, as that is the definition of a democracy. And when they do decide, these same false democracy lovers can't live with those results. It's not what they want, not the way they want it, and so it's not the a democracy anymore. Been that way forever, always will be. I mean, look at all those states leaving the Union. Same little groups of dissatisfied democracy lovers that have always been around. A democracy is established so these smaller, dictorial cells, can't rule over the whole.

 

[spartacus53]

Least we forget all of the conspiracy threads too

If you like, go to any of my posts and see if I was against the 2nd amendment, you won't find one. Huh


Pointing out a problem is one thing and trying to find a solution is another. Listing potential dangers is far from a crime, but it gets overbearing when you have nothing else to bring to the table except your worst fears.

Now, I have a post with a possible solution on this board toward the bottom by now, and it has a solution.

OK, you may at first think it's a joke at first, but read it, absorb the message and let it sink in It's only about 20 posts down the line

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

A democracy is 50.1% of the people telling 49.9% what they can and can't do.
America was founded as a Constitutional Republic not a Democracy...

Any law passed that violates the Constitution is an illegal law.

 

[Chadeaux]

A democracy is 50.1% of the people telling 49.9% what they can and can't do.
America was founded as a Constitutional Republic not a Democracy...

Any law passed that violates the Constitution is an illegal law.

You did forget one thing though . . . The law, even if 99.99% are against it, is still the law.

The law, based on the constitution, is the law regardless of who does or does not like it.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

A democracy is 50.1% of the people telling 49.9% what they can and can't do.
America was founded as a Constitutional Republic not a Democracy...

Any law passed that violates the Constitution is an illegal law.

Such as...? AMERICA was founded as a REPUBLIC, true; WHITE...FIT... MEN... Republic; now-a-days... DEMOCRATIC; to include WHITE women, BLACK men/women, RED/NATIVE men/women, YELLOW/ORIENTAL men/women, ppl with VARIOUS disabilities (developmental/asquired/combat injured), young & old/elderly, RICH or POOR, etc. SO!

 

[worldtalker]

Least we forget all of the conspiracy threads too

If you like, go to any of my posts and see if I was against the 2nd amendment, you won't find one. Huh


Pointing out a problem is one thing and trying to find a solution is another. Listing potential dangers is far from a crime, but it gets overbearing when you have nothing else to bring to the table except your worst fears.

Now, I have a post with a possible solution on this board toward the bottom by now, and it has a solution.

OK, you may at first think it's a joke at first, but read it, absorb the message and let it sink in It's only about 20 posts down the line

People better start waking up and act accordingly {together} ! Pretty good for a wise ass!

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Such as...?

Read the Constitution, The Bill of Rights and our forefathers writings.

If government passes law saying it is illegal for newspapers to publish articles critical of government policies is that law illegal and if so why?

 

[bigscoop]

A democracy is 50.1% of the people telling 49.9% what they can and can't do.
America was founded as a Constitutional Republic not a Democracy...

Any law passed that violates the Constitution is an illegal law.

So who, "exactly" would you have interpret the language in the constitution so it can be applied fairly, and equally, to everyone? Unfortunately, we don't live in that same era anymore, society has changed, technology has changed, the threats have changed, etc., etc., etc. Obviously these vast advances and changes must be governed by laws. So who then, gets to determine what is, and is not, within the constitutional limits in this modern era? You? Me? Red? Crispin? Spart? Or do we simply assume a lawless frontier in a country where the elbow room is growing smaller and smaller by the day and the diversity of our society is changing at an extremely rapid pace? Many other countries have tried to hold onto outdated policy, and where are they today. Most have either collapsed or adapted to change.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Read the Constitution, The Bill of Rights and our forefathers writings.

If government passes law saying it is illegal for newspapers to publish articles critical of government policies is that law illegal and if so why?

Read MY "post" # 66; we are an INCLUSIVE society.

 

[Crispin]

Treasure Hunter: A Constitutional government is defined as a state where officials are elected to represent the people. A democracy is defined as a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in decisions that affect their lives. Our government was founded as a constitutional state; however, we are a democracy and govern as such, by design.

I believe the essence of your statement, please correct me if I am wrong; is that, we as the people of a constitutional government have the duty to uphold the constitution and fight against the tyranny of government. I am coming from this at a different angle. I do not see where our government has tyrannical control over us. I continue to see a democracy where eligible people have an equal say. I certainly do not see tyranny that would require us to uphold our constitutional rights and take up arms against the government.

Until such a time takes place then we must live in a society with structured rules, for the benefit of all, and to prevent other civil liberties from being infringed upon. Hence, we must follow laws. If each person judged each law independently and decided which ones they would uphold then we would live in a society without law. If we must take up arms against our government to overthrow tyranny, then so be it, count me with you. I do not see that state of our society as deteriorated to that extent.

Respectfully,
Crispin

 

[worldtalker]

So who, "exactly" would you have interpret the language in the constitution so it can be applied fairly, and equally, to everyone? Unfortunately, we don't live in that same era anymore, society has changed, technology has changed, the threats have changed, etc., etc., etc. Obviously these vast advances and changes must be governed by laws. So who then, gets to determine what is, and is not, within the constitutional limits in this modern era? You? Me? Red? Crispin? Spart? Or do we simply assume a lawless frontier in a country where the elbow room is growing smaller and smaller by the day and the diversity of our society is changing at an extremely rapid pace? Many other countries have tried to hold onto outdated policy, and where are they today. Most have either collapsed or adapted to change.

Have you flown resently(my self I won't anymore after personal unneed TSA crap,I pose not a threat to society) there is SO MUCH land down there,unihabited. Make use of it!!!!!

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

So if government says free speech is no longer allowed because it incites people and when we were founded we didn't have as many people so now its not relevant do you just accept that?

There is nothing to interpret when it comes to the Bill of Rights and the language is clear, interpret just means find a way around the Constitution.

 

[bigscoop]

TH, I have stated many times that I do not know what the answer is, having said that, consider the following:

You have the right to bear arms, and you are further insured that the government cannot infringe upon that right. Unfortunately, this all the guarantee you are provided. Keep this in mind.

If lawmakers wrote an amendment, or law, that limited your ability to access all but a few style of firearms you would be in an obvious uproar, because you would see this as infringing upon your rights.

On the flip side, if lawmakers wrote an amendment or law that further insured your future access to a much wider range of firearms, you would obviously quickly support it.

Point is, the wording of the Constitution and Bill of Rights leaves a lot of legal wiggle room, and as long as that wiggle room wiggles the right way for each of us we will support it. Otherwise, it is an infringement upon out rights, forget about the possible majority that desire it the other way.

You can stand firm in your statement that the constitution and bill of rights should never be changed, but the reality of the situation is that if those changes favor your personal ideas and beliefs, then you would most likely favor that change, as would most everyone else on the favorable side of the amendment or law.

You don’t want democracy, you want a constitutional republic, but who gets to govern that constitutional government? By your position it can’t be a democracy, so then who if the current system needs changed? You? Me? Red? Crispin? Or do we change nothing and let total chaos reign throughout, where only the strongest and most dominate survive?

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner. "
-- Report of the Subcommittee On The Constitution of the Committee On
The Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, second session
(February, 1982), SuDoc# Y4.J 89/2: Ar 5/5

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

”Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.”
~George Washington

.”This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it.”
~Abraham Lincoln

.”By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia,’ ‘the security of the nation,’ and the right of each citizen ‘to keep and bear arms,’ our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy… The Second Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.”
~John F. Kennedy

‘Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.”
~Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

.”The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non ["something essential" lit. "without which not"] for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or police.”
~Adolph Hitler

“This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!” ~Adolph Hitler, 1935, on The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany

 

[Chadeaux]

Treasure Hunter: A Constitutional government is defined as a state where officials are elected to represent the people. A democracy is defined as a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in decisions that affect their lives. Our government was founded as a constitutional state; however, we are a democracy and govern as such, by design.

I believe the essence of your statement, please correct me if I am wrong; is that, we as the people of a constitutional government have the duty to uphold the constitution and fight against the tyranny of government. I am coming from this at a different angle. I do not see where our government has tyrannical control over us. I continue to see a democracy where eligible people have an equal say. I certainly do not see tyranny that would require us to uphold our constitutional rights and take up arms against the government.

Until such a time takes place then we must live in a society with structured rules, for the benefit of all, and to prevent other civil liberties from being infringed upon. Hence, we must follow laws. If each person judged each law independently and decided which ones they would uphold then we would live in a society without law. If we must take up arms against our government to overthrow tyranny, then so be it, count me with you. I do not see that state of our society as deteriorated to that extent.

Respectfully,
Crispin

You got the first part wrong, thus you cannot get the rest correct.

We are a Representative republic.

For the education of all: An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic

I especially liked this paragraph:

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

 

[worldtalker]

Deaf ears I say,deaf ears you speak to,ONLY by HIS grace will they understand. Be Safe GodBless Chris

 

[bigscoop]

Deaf ears I say,deaf ears you speak to,ONLY by HIS grace will they understand. Be Safe GodBless Chris

Are you referencing religion again? Who, exactly, is "His" in the above quote?

 

[releventchair]

And to the republic for which it stands.