And here I thought you were in the business of inferring. I've stated my points many times over. You still have access to guns...(there it is in a nutshell)
cheeky sarcastic bastard lol
Thats not true, not everybody (and more importantly law abiding citizens) have access to guns, look at post #7 for a real example in this thread.
The problem is they already have taken our rights away. For example, the NDAA act has officially by law stripped the 5th amendment.
Okay here's my point, if the government does not OFFER rights to its people as you've stated above, then who drafted/offered the Bill of Rights?
INALIENABLE rights are not OFFERED to any man, by any government.
And who wrote that?
rights are self evident, privelages are given. nobody decided these are rights and those privelages. and my point is if the government wanted to control rights or privelages why was the language used to limit what they can and cant take away?
Who wrote that text? "We hold these truths to be self-evident." <------Written by men in GOVERNMENT, NOT by some divine being.
who else would write it?
Men in government...correct? Or incorrect?
Usually you would find that in the preamble, and in the religion clauses. The US constitution's preamble was based off of the model of the preamble in the Articles of Confederation which did not use the word "god." It began as Articles of the Confederation and started listing the 13 states....which later was dropped to be simpler as "We The People." In 1787, it was most likely unimaginable that radical secularists groups would spin it the way they have.
i never argued that i was some divine being, the point im making is that government cant take these rights away, nomatter who wrote them, man or divine being
So essentially the government can write/propose law, but it CANNOT restrict them?
semantics much?
restrict laws? or restrict freedoms?
and ill state it again....if you dont like the way things are structure here in the US...move to a country that fits your beliefs.
So your position (based on the statement above) is that as a country we SHOULD NOT be ruled/governed by law? That's your position?
Fair enough, good response. Although, one could argue that we have a "right" to choose what we can or cannot do with our bodies? Yet, ROE V WADE contradicts that argument entirely. So it's not exactly a black and white argument, when you examine the context.
I'm not, thus why I framed it in the form of a question...
wether good or bad, to protect it's citizens, etc...
For some, laws equate to having more freedom, i.e. dissolution of slavery, a woman's right to choose etc.
you can argue that! and thats why i dont support roe vs wade entirely. We do have a right to our bodies, but where do you draw the line? a woman does have the right to do with her body as she sees fit but at the same time does that baby not deserve to live because her mother and father made a mistake or is a product of misfortune? laws about abortion are extremly gray and open for interpretation and sadly i dont think there is a right or good solution to the problem.
just wanted to clear that up for anybody that might have thought me or southpaw had sandy vag syndrome
which is why I said good or bad
I respect your posts man. I know sometimes in here it can come across as quite the opposite. There's nothing wrong with a spirited debate. I never fire the first shot, it's only after someone fires at me, I take aim. Lol.you can argue that! and thats why i dont support roe vs wade entirely. We do have a right to our bodies, but where do you draw the line? a woman does have the right to do with her body as she sees fit but at the same time does that baby not deserve to live because her mother and father made a mistake or is a product of misfortune? laws about abortion are extremly gray and open for interpretation and sadly i dont think there is a right or good solution to the problem.
and this was a good, healthy debate! i just wanna make sure that in any of my responses they were not ill mannered or attacking in anyway minus a few light-hearted name calling and smart ass responses.
No document should remain infallible and that's the point. I brought up those examples to show the mindset of one of the founders, at the time the Constitution was being drafted, nothing more, nothing less.
i do see your overall point thats why i try and keep my religious believes seperate from law and my political beliefs...i personally believe that we all have our free agency and that even though i might religiously agree with a given premise, i dont let that cloud my judgement as to whether or not that issue should be law or not
although by restricting one freedom it may open the door for many others....ie the case of slavery and womens suffrage specifically
Laws passed dissolving slavery...limitation of freedom?
Laws (the newer ones) shouldnt be needed for those examples. Government's has a responsibility is to protect our "god given rights" (lol, or natural rights) that were already enforced (not sure if thats the right word there) in our Bill or Rights.
Awesome response.
I agree completely. I don't think anyone is arguing that.
I kind of disagree...You cant have a free society by having one "free" person suppress another. Any law created isnt to restrict anyone's freedom, its to enforce it.
i think an old school,pissed off cotton farmer might...not that we have any here in the forum but just in case! cause you never know
Technically, yes.
Lol. Dear god man.You sure you don't want to clarify that statement? Because as it stands, it looks awful. But if you're cool with it, so be it.
I know he wasnt talking about me...but Ill be right back the feds are sticking camera's up my plumbing again, just saw a floater in my toilet again.
That interpretation is highly...Scalia-esque. Lol.
