Lets make it simple

[worldtalker]

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

There is a start somewhere.it is self discovery,I truly hope you find it within.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[dieselram94]

The only reason the bill of rights will ever be changed is to take rights away. The ruling class will NEVER allow private U.S. citizens to have more rights. After all they consider themselves royalty. Support changing the bill of rights you are advocating for a even more tyrannical govt.

 

[dieselram94]

As far as religion is concerned, whats wrong with religion? In days gone by when religion was more closely adhered to crime was much less.

 

[bigscoop]

There is a start somewhere.it is self discovery,I truly hope you find it within.

I'm doing just fine in the self-discovery department. Extremely happy within!

 

[dieselram94]

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

Crispin, you do not see where this govt has become tyrannical? Do you not pay any attention or should I say unbiassed attention to current events? And as far as eligible people have a say I guess you are referencing illegal aliens and all the voter fraud that happens every election. The world must look fantastic through your rose colored glasses! Can I also get a pair off CNN 's fan club web page?

 

[Red James Cash]

Heres a way to put it.Name one aspect of your life that the government doesnt have their fingers in it in one way or another.

 

[bill from lachine]

RJC,

And don't forget the slippery slope....it's just around the corner.

Regards + HH

Bill

 

[Red James Cash]

I wear have cleats

 

[Crispin]

There we were having a good discussion and it had to get all mucked up with nonsense again. Folks, if we are going to discuss the 2nd amendment then we have to stick to the topic. If you run out of intelligent things to say, that's cool, you don't have to say anything.

Chadeaux: Good post, interesting thoughts. I am glad to you have you on our side. There is definitely a difference between a republic and a constitutional government. I chose the words constitutional government because that was what TH was referring to. To talk about republics is a whole different ball of wax. Republics consist of one party systems and are covers for regimes...ie.. The people's Republic of China and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. We stopped being a republic when we evolved into a two-party system.

TH: I love your quotes, taken individually I would never disagree with any of them. However, great quotes are just that...great quotes. They do not leave room to further discussion. As previously mentioned, we all agree with you in principle. All of us would take up arms next to you if the need were to arise. Here are some points I bring up for discussion:
1. Does the constitution build in a system of checks and balances that divide us into an executive, legislative, and juicidal branch? If so, is it not the juicidal's branch sole responsibility to interpret the constitution? Why is that not good enough?
2. We have limits of all our rights already...like it or not. We do not have Freedom of speech: we cannot incite to riot, nor can we slander someone. Both of these are crimes.
3. We already have limits placed on our right to bear arms. Should we take up arms against the government because of those laws already in place?
4. Given unrestricted access to firearms if we did have to oppose a tyrannical government we would be nothing but martyrs. They would swat us like pesky gnats.

WorldTalker: Booga-booga boo, wouldy-cudgey rueprowlsky.

DieselRam: Et nomine patri, et fili, spiritcus sancti.

 

[dieselram94]

There we were having a good discussion and it had to get all mucked up with nonsense again. Folks, if we are going to discuss the 2nd amendment then we have to stick to the topic. If you run out of intelligent things to say, that's cool, you don't have to say anything.

Chadeaux: Good post, interesting thoughts. I am glad to you have you on our side. There is definitely a difference between a republic and a constitutional government. I chose the words constitutional government because that was what TH was referring to. To talk about republics is a whole different ball of wax. Republics consist of one party systems and are covers for regimes...ie.. The people's Republic of China and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. We stopped being a republic when we evolved into a two-party system.

TH: I love your quotes, taken individually I would never disagree with any of them. However, great quotes are just that...great quotes. They do not leave room to further discussion. As previously mentioned, we all agree with you in principle. All of us would take up arms next to you if the need were to arise. Here are some points I bring up for discussion:
1. Does the constitution build in a system of checks and balances that divide us into an executive, legislative, and juicidal branch? If so, is it not the juicidal's branch sole responsibility to interpret the constitution? Why is that not good enough?
2. We have limits of all our rights already...like it or not. We do not have Freedom of speech: we cannot incite to riot, nor can we slander someone. Both of these are crimes.
3. We already have limits placed on our right to bear arms. Should we take up arms against the government because of those laws already in place?
4. Given unrestricted access to firearms if we did have to oppose a tyrannical government we would be nothing but martyrs. They would swat us like pesky gnats.

WorldTalker: Booga-booga boo, wouldy-cudgey rueprowlsky.

DieselRam: Et nomine patri, et fili, spiritcus sancti.

Crispin, there you go again trying to sound intelligent, with how you addressed Worldtalker and I. I asked you in my last post how you cannot see OUR govt. as becoming tyrannical, I believe you want to see the best in our govt. however why is it anyone who disagrees with you must not have any good in them? You are all to quick to only see one side of the argument. As an AMERICAN I believe we are an exceptional people and our history proves this. Also as an AMERICAN I don't see why you or any other patriotic AMERICAN would be so willing to give up our rights guaranteed to us. You said earlier you want a reasonable conversation, this would be a big change from a previous thread in which you called me the enemy and would like to personally come get my guns. As far as me being the enemy, nothing could be further from the truth...we are all AMERICANS we should not be calling each other enemies just cause we disagree. Much of the rest of the world is very dangerous and truly our enemies. I do hope you only said because of the heat of the moment and not a true belief. You being knowledgeable in mental issues should recognize this.

 

[Crispin]

DieselRam: You bring up some good points. Did you translate what I said to you? In latin, it means, In the name of the father, the son, and the holy ghost. I was agreeing with you on religion. Fair enough, I did not answer your questions. I will answer yours...then you answer mine (from previous post.) Tit for tat, Clarice, tit for tat. O, one last thing, I am not trying to sound intelligent. This is how I talk. It is hard for me to dumb things down to worldtalkers 11th and one half year education. I have 12 years of higher education after HS...how can I pretend like I learned nothing from that time?

1. No, I really do not see our government as being tyrannical. I think this is the best government in the world and they do the best job they can. Do you think any other government is doing a better job?
2. I am not trying to give up rights. I am trying to engage in a conversation on limits of gun control. I have stated this several times. So far, I have not been able to get past, "No limits are acceptable..." See above post, we already have limits.
3. I take back calling you the enemy. You are right, that was said out of emotion and I do not believe that. In fact, I would consider you a friend; but, I was reprimanded by another TNET member for using this term too loosely. I apologize for calling you the enemy. I would never go to anybody's house and take their guns. If you go back and read that thread I think you will see that I was getting slammed pretty bad. I was all fired up. Since then, I have tried not to use any inflammatory comments like that.

Et nomine patri, et fili, spiritcus sancti,

Crispin

 

[dieselram94]

DieselRam: You bring up some good points. Did you translate what I said to you? In latin, it means, In the name of the father, the son, and the holy ghost. I was agreeing with you on religion. Fair enough, I did not answer your questions. I will answer yours...then you answer mine (from previous post.) Tit for tat, Clarice, tit for tat. O, one last thing, I am not trying to sound intelligent. This is how I talk. It is hard for me to dumb things down to worldtalkers 11th and one half year education. I have 12 years of higher education after HS...how can I pretend like I learned nothing from that time?

1. No, I really do not see our government as being tyrannical. I think this is the best government in the world and they do the best job they can. Do you think any other government is doing a better job?
2. I am not trying to give up rights. I am trying to engage in a conversation on limits of gun control. I have stated this several times. So far, I have not been able to get past, "No limits are acceptable..." See above post, we already have limits.
3. I take back calling you the enemy. You are right, that was said out of emotion and I do not believe that. In fact, I would consider you a friend; but, I was reprimanded by another TNET member for using this term too loosely. I apologize for calling you the enemy. I would never go to anybody's house and take their guns. If you go back and read that thread I think you will see that I was getting slammed pretty bad. I was all fired up. Since then, I have tried not to use any inflammatory comments like that.

Et nomine patri, et fili, spiritcus sancti,

Crispin

Crispin, I gladly accept your apology. I realize things were getting quite heated. As far as the father, son and holy ghost I took it as you were saying I was beyond hope and you were praying for me. For that I do apologize as well for taking it wrong. As far as our govt. becoming tyrannical, I believe past actions support this. Look at how the health care bill was passed, buying off senators with special benefits for their state (remember the one big hold out?), how about stopping all drilling in the gulf with no regard to peoples lives and income. Maybe the stopping of the Keystone pipeline could be viewed as evidence. Remember Obama's comments on bankrupting the coal industry? I could go on and on. As far as limits on gun ownership I think what we have is pretty sufficient. As far as your other questions: #1 question The checks and balances are being disregarded by the president, like the executive orders on immigration, energy, as well as other issues. #2 and 3 questions Yes we do have limits on our rights already. But are those not sufficient? A criminal is not allowed to own a gun but as we all know many do the laws prohibiting this simply do not work. It always seems to be us law abiding folks are the ones constantly getting slammed by more and more laws and restrictions. To put more limits on our rights only will empower the criminal element. We should not take up arms against the govt. now but this is a real growing sentiment and more suppressing laws and regulations will miss the intended effect and only build upon these feelings. #4 question If we did take up arms as a large movement we would be very effective. However the way you asked it "swat us like gnats" just proves how important it is for us AMERICANS to be armed to prevent the govt. from becoming tyrannical. Et nomine patri, et fili, spiritcus sancti, ~ Dieselram94

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Yes the legislative is suppose to interpret the law, but then again you have a leader who goes around the law in violation of the constitution and the courts do not call him on it.

The 10[SUP]th[/SUP] Amendment says “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

In July 2010, the Justice Department sued Arizona for a law requiring state officials to enforce federal immigration laws. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits states from assisting in enforcing federal laws. Meanwhile, the Justice Department ignores "sanctuary cities" that openly violate federal law.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Is wearing seat belts in cars/trucks, a BAD thing?

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Yes the legislative is suppose to interpret the law, but then again you have a leader who goes around the law in violation of the constitution and the courts do not call him on it.

The 10[SUP]th[/SUP] Amendment says “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

In July 2010, the Justice Department sued Arizona for a law requiring state officials to enforce federal immigration laws. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits states from assisting in enforcing federal laws. Meanwhile, the Justice Department ignores "sanctuary cities" that openly violate federal law.

Obama does this? WOW!

 

[Crispin]

Alright, now we rolling. This is some good discussion. Except for the whole seat belt thing...not really sure where that came from. This is my last post on the night as I have a long day ahead of me.

DieselRam: I don't disagree with any of your statements about the US government. Lets keep politics at bay but remember I am in the health care field. Do you have any idea the damage being done by the government in that area? I think our government is corrupt. I think all governments are corrupt. I think they are stubborn and refuse to compromise. All this last second fiscal cliff nonsense attests to the giant pissing contest on Capitol Hill. However, I do not think our government is tyrannical. We do not have taxation without representation. The Bill of Rights is being upheld. Two questions for you: 1. What specific action of government are you classifying as tyranny, lets just start with one example. 2. Do you think any other governement in the world is doing a better job?

TH: I think the courts will call him on it in time. Our system is rock slow but we don't want knee-jerk legislation as Ammon pointed out in a previous thread. It is important that we review things in time. Give the system time to work. Again, I have just as much horse as anybody else in the courts interpretation of the law. I am actively involved in compromising with the government on health care issues; after all, I am the expert. Do you want me compromising with the government on gun legislation? What do I know about guns...not a whole lot. Please answer this question my friend: Is it better to work with the government or alienate and isolate yourself from them? If compromise fails we can always take up arms as a last resort. I know I am toting the politics line here but I think these examples are fair comparisons to current discussion.

 

[bigscoop]

When we study history all of our leaders worked around the constitution and the bill of rights in the same way, even the men who were part of the creating of these very documents. i.e., Jefferson didn't have the power to make the Louisiana purchase, and yet he did it anyway. Adams and Monroe, they both frequently acted outside their capacity in order to get what they wanted. And Jackson, his antics are legendary. Today these leaders are watched even more closely, believe it or not, but back in the day it was common practice for many of them.

 

[worldtalker]

Is wearing seat belts in cars/trucks, a BAD thing?

I suffered a t-bone crash and driving into an overturned semi trailer w/out a seat belt,I now wear a seatbelt,I don't like stitches!!! NOT because it's the law,it's makes sense to me.

 

[dieselram94]

Crispin, just one govt. action I would classify as tyranny would be executive orders on immigration that ignore existing law. Another one (I know you only asked for one) would be the statements of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi regarding how much people should make, is this not the land of the free? Our govt. is by far the best in the world however if we so much as blink the U.N. and all three branches of govt. will take away our sovereignty and squash our rights and way of life in the so called pursuit of "fairness" I.E. wealth redistribution.

 

[worldtalker]

When we study history all of our leaders worked around the constitution and the bill of rights in the same way, even the men who were part of the creating of these very documents. i.e., Jefferson didn't have the power to make the Louisiana purchase, and yet he did it anyway. Adams and Monroe, they both frequently acted outside their capacity in order to get what they wanted. And Jackson, his antics are legendary. Today these leaders are watched even more closely, believe it or not, but back in the day it was common practice for many of them.

Watched more closely by whom if I may ask.