Guest viewing is limited

Impeach Gov. Andrew Cuomo 4 violating New Yorker's 2nd Amendment

southpaw23 said:
Why does what bother me?
Click to expand...

"There is some irony in saying that gun ownership is a god given right and cannot be taken away by man, in lieu of the fact that these documents were written by.... MEN."

Whats the big deal if someone is religious and feel rights are given by a god? Does that bother you? If not what is your purpose of that post?
 
southpaw23 said:
Lol. So who created/crafted the bill of rights? If not by governmental figures. Who crafted the Constitution? Was it not men who worked in various areas of governance? Oh I forgot ...it's the "creator."
Click to expand...

cheeky sarcastic bastard lol

and yes even though it was men that crafted the bill, but the bill they crafted was to limit its powers. if that was the case why did they choose to use words like "the government SHALL NOT infringe...."? why wouldnt they say "the governments GIVES these rights?

it was to protect the rights of the individual citizens from future tyrants that could potentially take power later down the road and want to remove these rights from the citizens. they were smart enough to understand that what the "government giveth, the government can take away" but if the government doesnt give rights, they cant remove those rights.

bottom line is, the rights are there and they wont be taken away by anybody, the american people wont allow it, and the consitution doesnt allow it. no matter how much you or jefferson or obama bitches about it. If you dont like it, move to a country where freedoms and liberties are privelages and not rights.
 
southpaw23 said:
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)
Click to expand...

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.

Is there "freedom of the press" if a reporters editor selectively censors certain articles and topics?
 
ax1 said:

"There is some irony in saying that gun ownership is a god given right and cannot be taken away by man, in lieu of the fact that these documents were written by.... MEN."

Whats the big deal if someone is religious and feel rights are given by a god? Does that bother you? If not what is your purpose of that post?
Click to expand...

You're inferring again. It has nothing to do with me. I'm not that self involved. I could care less one way or the other what someone believes. I'm not here to interpret. The fact is, the Constitution makes no mention whatsoever about GOD. Fact. Not opinion.
 
MANotaur said:
bottom line is, the rights are there and they wont be taken away by anybody, the american people wont allow it, and the consitution doesnt allow it. no matter how much you or jefferson or obama bitches about it. If you dont like it, move to a country where freedoms and liberties are privelages and not rights.
Click to expand...

The problem is they already have taken our rights away. For example, the NDAA act has officially by law stripped the 5th amendment.

Its one thing to follow the constitution, its another to preach it as a museum artifact.
 
MANotaur said:
cheeky sarcastic bastard lol

and yes even though it was men that crafted the bill, but the bill they crafted was to limit its powers. if that was the case why did they choose to use words like "the government SHALL NOT infringe...."? why wouldnt they say "the governments GIVES these rights?

it was to protect the rights of the individual citizens from future tyrants that could potentially take power later down the road and want to remove these rights from the citizens. they were smart enough to understand that what the "government giveth, the government can take away" but if the government doesnt give rights, they cant remove those rights.

bottom line is, the rights are there and they wont be taken away by anybody, the american people wont allow it, and the consitution doesnt allow it. no matter how much you or jefferson or obama bitches about it. If you dont like it, move to a country where freedoms and liberties are privelages and not rights.
Click to expand...

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?
 
southpaw23 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
MANotaur said:
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?
Click to expand...

Who wrote that text? "We hold these truths to be self-evident." <------Written by men in GOVERNMENT, NOT by some divine being.
 
southpaw23 said:
You're inferring again. It has nothing to do with me. I'm not that self involved. I could care less one way or the other what someone believes. I'm not here to interpret. The fact is, the Constitution makes no mention whatsoever about GOD. Fact. Not opinion.
Click to expand...

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.

Anyways can carry on, and I know its debatable, but personally it doesnt matter to me.
 
southpaw23 said:
Who wrote that text? "We hold these truths to be self-evident." <------Written by men NOT by some divine being.
Click to expand...

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
 
ax1 said:
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.

Anyways can carry on, and I both know its debatable, but personally it doesnt matter to me.
Click to expand...

I already know the document's roots, as I've researched it at length so that I'm prepared. Lol.
 
MANotaur said:
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
Click to expand...

So essentially the government can write/propose law, but it CANNOT restrict them?
 
southpaw23 said:
So essentially the government can write/propose law, but it CANNOT restrict them?
Click to expand...

semantics much?

and thats what it says in the bill of rights isnt it? government SHALL NOT INFRINGE.
and theres a difference in law and rights...again...

law- dont kill people, its bad
right- to own guns and protect myself

law-dont steal, its bad
right- to have/create a job to support myself and those that i so chose

law-dont lie under oathe, its bad
right- to express my thoughts and opinions openly without fear of consequence or punishment

difference between law and right my friend. Government can write laws to protect its citizens and its citizens rights but it cannot pass legislation that removes my ability to exercise my right.
 
southpaw23 said:
So essentially the government can write/propose law, but it CANNOT restrict them?
Click to expand...

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.
 
MANotaur said:
semantics much?

and thats what it says in the bill of rights isnt it? government SHALL NOT INFRINGE.
and theres a difference in law and rights...again...

law- dont kill people, its bad
right- to own guns and protect myself

law-dont steal, its bad
right- to have/create a job to support myself and those that i so chose

law-dont lie under oathe, its bad
right- to express my thoughts and opinions openly without fear of consequence or punishment

difference between law and right my friend. Government can write laws to protect its citizens and its citizens rights but it cannot pass legislation that removes my ability to exercise my right.
Click to expand...

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.
 
southpaw23 said:
I'm not, thus why I framed it in the form of a question...
Click to expand...

wether good or bad, to protect it's citizens, etc...

more laws = less freedom.

10 years ago you had the freedom to purchase ephedra...laws were passed, you now no longer have that freedom.

noone ever said we should live in complete anarchy.
 
carpee said:
wether good or bad, to protect it's citizens, etc...

more laws = less freedom.

10 years ago you had the freedom to purchase ephedra...laws were passed, you now no longer have that freedom.

noone ever said we should live in complete anarchy.
Click to expand...

For some, laws equate to having more freedom, i.e. dissolution of slavery, a woman's right to choose etc.
 
southpaw23 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. ;) just wanted to clear that up for anybody that might have thought me or southpaw had sandy vag syndrome
 
MANotaur said:
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. ;) just wanted to clear that up for anybody that might have thought me or southpaw had sandy vag syndrome
Click to expand...

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.

But the example here, that one has freedom over themselves and their property, and these freedoms are inalienable, contradict the opposition to allowing someone the right to make decisions regarding their own bodies. Someone brought up the ephedra ban as an overreach of law, but in the same breath supports a law that would seek to restrict a person's ability to make choices regarding their own bodies. Can you see the contradiction? Now if you argue that the Constitution makes no mention of god, or religion and you support it, then how can one then turn around and say that they don't support a woman's right to choose based on your religious beliefs. It doesn't make sense. You see my overall point?
 
Interestingly the constitution is outdated but the writings from the same time period and same authors are apparently infallible.
 
He never said the ephedra ban was an overreach he said it restricted freedom as an example that all laws restrict freedom (because technically they do)
 
jimbuick said:
Interestingly the constitution is outdated but the writings from the same time period and same authors are apparently infallible.
Click to expand...

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.
 
southpaw23 said:
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.

But the example here, that one has freedom over themselves and their property, and these freedoms are inalienable, contradict the opposition to allowing someone the right to make decisions regarding their own bodies. Someone brought up the ephedra ban as an over reach of law, but in the same breath supports a law that would seek to restrict a person's ability to make choices regarding their own bodies. Can you see the contradiction? Now if you argue that the Constitution makes no mention of god, or religion and you support it, then how can one then turn around and say that they don't support a woman's right to choose based on your religious beliefs. It doesn't make sense. You see my overall point?
Click to expand...

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
 
jimbuick said:
He never said the ephedra ban was an overreach he said it restricted freedom as an example that all laws restrict freedom (because technically they do)
Click to expand...

although by restricting one freedom it may open the door for many others....ie the case of slavery and womens suffrage specifically
 
southpaw23 said:
For some, laws equate to having more freedom, i.e. dissolution of slavery, a woman's right to choose etc.
Click to expand...

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.
 
MANotaur said:
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
Click to expand...

Awesome response.
 
MANotaur said:
although by restricting one freedom it may open the door for many others....ie the case of slavery and womens suffrage specifically
Click to expand...

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.
 
By the way, I do support the right for someone to own/purchase a firearm despite not being a fan of them myself. What I have no patience for is someone whose brain operates on another planet, thinking someone's out to get them, someone's coming to kidnap them in the middle of the night, someone who bases EVERYTHING off of conspiracies and uses poor sources to back up those claims. Other than that, I'm good. Lol.
 
ax1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

edit...Cant...lol that looked so bad when I first noticed my error.
 
southpaw23 said:
By the way, I do support the right for someone to own/purchase a firearm despite not being a fan of them myself. What I have no patience for is someone whose brain operates on another planet, thinking someone's out to get them, someone's coming to kidnap them in the middle of the night, someone who bases EVERYTHING off of conspiracies and uses poor sources to back up those claims. Other than that, I'm good. Lol.
Click to expand...

so, ax?

hahah kidding ax
 
carpee said:
so, ax?

hahah kidding ax
Click to expand...

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.
 
ax1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

not the feds...that was me...sorry dude old habbits die hard
 
Abolishing slavery restricted the freedoms of slaveowners by taking what was, at the time, their property.

Now with that said, I completely agree that slavery was wrong and that abolishing it was in the beat interest of American citizens by allowing them to live with the same freedoms but it initially restricted one mans freedoms to allow another to have Freedom.
 
jimbuick said:
Abolishing slavery restricted the freedoms of slaveowners by taking what was, at the time, their property.

Now with that said, I completely agree that slavery was wrong and that abolishing it was in the beat interest of American citizens by allowing them to live with the same freedoms but it initially restricted one mans freedoms to allow another to have Freedom.
Click to expand...

That interpretation is highly...Scalia-esque. Lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top