Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The usual mischaracterization of the facts. Failure to protect can indeed be prosecuted under conditions of "special relationship" and in cases of state-created dangers. You cannot however sue the police for failing to rush over and push you out of the way of a falling tree.
You have an individual right to own wepaons appropriate to self-defense in your own home.
Yes and ANYWHERE else. No one surrenders their right to defend themselves just because they walked outside... unless they consent otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fairlaker
Sovereign citizen balderdash. If you live in a society, you ceded much of your sovereignty to the state as a condition of membership. Try to grab that unrightful sovereignty back and we jail you.
Apparently YOU inserted "sovereign citizen" so "balderdash" back at you.
There is no such thing as a "Sovereign Citizen," because citizens are not sovereign, by definition.
And, no, the people did not cede sovereignty back to the state government.
"In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people."
[ Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)]
..........
Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
[Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)]
The government thinks "the people" are sovereign.
Who told you otherwise?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fairlaker
You don't have any rights at all that are not defined. assigned, and defended by the state. Without the state, the next bigger, stronger, faster guy who comes along can simply take away everything you have. Good luck with a system like that.
"... Don't have any rights at all that are not defined. assigned, and defended by the state."
...
"There is a clear distinction in this particular case between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his constitutional right as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights. "
Hale vs Henkel, 201 U.S. 43.
...
NATURAL RIGHTS - ... are the rights of life, liberty, privacy, and good reputation.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 1324
" PERSONAL LIBERTY, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or NATURAL Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable."
- - - 16 Corpus Juris Secundum, Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987...
... "Without the state, the next bigger, stronger, faster guy who comes along can simply take away everything you have."
I presume you are referring to the servant government, instituted to secure rights.
Frankly, the government IS delegated power to secure rights, but that generally means prosecution AFTER THE FACT.
Before or during the attack by the bigger, stronger, faster predator, it's up to the people to be WELL-ARMED and READY to defend themselves.
AMERICANS DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIFE AND TO DEFEND THAT LIFE... so far.
One of your so-called "freedoms" is the Freedom of Speech.
Too bad if you don't like it.
What in the world are you talking about? Who said I didn't like freedom of speach and how in the WORLD is that even relevant? you are making less and less sense with each post....and it's a perfect example of your style of posting - nonsensical ranting.
Yes I believe in the freedom of speech, but my post had nothing to do with it. By the way you also do NOT technically have freedom of speech in this CityData site, not that it applies here at all since "ranting" is not a TOS as far as I know, but just so that you know.
Take my advice for what it is - advice. You are not doing this debate any service.
LAX is arguably one of the "safest", most terrorist conscious airports in the world. Airports anywhere are now pockets of extreme policing, armed security personnel and equipment everywhere, their own governmental staff, customs, sniffer dogs, etc. They even have their own police force.
TLV has IDF patrolling the airport and vehicle checkpoints.....
One of your so-called "freedoms" is the Freedom of Speech.
Too bad if you don't like it.
There is nothing surprising about it. It is called collateral damage. We have decided to go with the 2nd and have an armed society. One unfortunate side effect of that is that we will have incidences like this of collateral damage. A well armed public may in deed minimize the collateral damage.
So you might think about making concealed carry more acceptable rather than less.
That way if you pull out your rifle there is a pretty good chance someone nearby will pop you with their pistol.
Gun control has simply proven to be unenforceable; as Jimmy Breslin once observed, there are inner-city neighborhoods where one block contains dozens, possibly hundreds, of unregistered guns. Same situation would develop in the rural areas if a serious attempt to outlaw firearms took root.
What disturbed me most about the Sandy Hook tragedy was that the only male on the premises was a janitor. While I recognize that early education is overwhelmingly a female profession, I believe that the presence of at least one male teacher in every elementary school, not necessarily armed, would act as a deterrent to some degree; simply because man and women tend to address threats in a dissimilar manner.
The mean season, with the phony hyped optimism of the Holidays is approaching -- when suicidal impulses accelerate and lone nuts come out of left. right, and center field. Time to keep our guard up, but also to recognize that "collective security" is largely a myth and an oxymoron.
I'm not against owning guns however, I believe we have the technology to track all guns with some sort of implant, I also think there are huge holes in sales laws that need to be fixed such as private and gun show sales. I'm not against law abiding people owning guns but I feel due to the folks who are so pro-gun they refuse to address ways to keep the guns out of criminals and the mentally ills hands and instead of spending millions on the gun lobby I'd like to see them come up with a way of implanting a tracking device in all guns, any sale of a gun be documented, an amendment to the HIPAA law to address the issue of the mentally ill getting their hands on a gun. I live rural and I'm not against healthy law abiding citizens owning all the guns they want, but I do believe there has to be a way with all of our tech advances to keep the guns out of criminal and mental ill hands.
Why stop there? If we're going to make a tracking implant small enough and robust enough to function reliably in a firearm, why not just implant all the felons and mentally ill and save a step?
There is nothing surprising about it. It is called collateral damage. We have decided to go with the 2nd and have an armed society. One unfortunate side effect of that is that we will have incidences like this of collateral damage. A well armed public may in deed minimize the collateral damage.
So you might think about making concealed carry more acceptable rather than less.
That way if you pull out your rifle there is a pretty good chance someone nearby will pop you with their pistol.
One of the problems with the OP's post is you can't really figure out what her point it, besides hatred of anything associated with guns. Her debate follows no logical conclusion.
But this amendment question brings up a point - that yes we have this bill of rights as part of this huge experiment started 250 years ago called the US constitution. The basic concept is personal liberty and freedom, the basic issue is personal responsibility. You can't have one without the other, you can't lose one without the other.
Many governments do not have complete freedom of speech - perhaps the country the OP lives in. They justify it by saying the government knows best, they should not complain about some issues and, because social order is maintained, safety is maintained. Yes, my experience in Singapore was telling - an extremely clean and safe environment, no one criticizes the government, everyone follows the rules (lest they get the lash)....populated by a society of soulless robots (maybe that's a bit extreme, but only a bit). So they ban certain movies and certain books. It's difficult for people to understand why we must allow such crazies like the KKK to have a rally, even to the point of protecting them by using our law enforcement resources. I travel all over the world, I would rather live in the US, warts and all, then anywhere else in the world.
The point it, our bill of rights, the right to own guns among them, but not exclusively, is a testament to personal freedom even while it causes some social ills. We must address the social ills of course, but at minimal cost to these freedoms.
What in the world are you talking about? Who said I didn't like freedom of speach and how in the WORLD is that even relevant? you are making less and less sense with each post....and it's a perfect example of your style of posting - nonsensical ranting.
Yes I believe in the freedom of speech, but my post had nothing to do with it. By the way you also do NOT technically have freedom of speech in this CityData site, not that it applies here at all since "ranting" is not a TOS as far as I know, but just so that you know.
Take my advice for what it is - advice. You are not doing this debate any service.
Haha when I express an opinion it's "ranting", when you do it's righteous?
One of the problems with the OP's post is you can't really figure out what her point it, besides hatred of anything associated with guns. Her debate follows no logical conclusion.
But this amendment question brings up a point - that yes we have this bill of rights as part of this huge experiment started 250 years ago called the US constitution. The basic concept is personal liberty and freedom, the basic issue is personal responsibility. You can't have one without the other, you can't lose one without the other.
Many governments do not have complete freedom of speech - perhaps the country the OP lives in. They justify it by saying the government knows best, they should not complain about some issues and, because social order is maintained, safety is maintained. Yes, my experience in Singapore was telling - an extremely clean and safe environment, no one criticizes the government, everyone follows the rules (lest they get the lash)....populated by a society of soulless robots (maybe that's a bit extreme, but only a bit). So they ban certain movies and certain books. It's difficult for people to understand why we must allow such crazies like the KKK to have a rally, even to the point of protecting them by using our law enforcement resources. I travel all over the world, I would rather live in the US, warts and all, then anywhere else in the world.
Our bill of rights, the right to own guns among them, but not exclusively, is a testament to personal freedom even while it causes some social ills. We must address the social ills of course, but at minimal cost to these freedoms.
There is nothing surprising about it. It is called collateral damage. We have decided to go with the 2nd and have an armed society. One unfortunate side effect of that is that we will have incidences like this of collateral damage. A well armed public may in deed minimize the collateral damage.
So you might think about making concealed carry more acceptable rather than less.
That way if you pull out your rifle there is a pretty good chance someone nearby will pop you with their pistol.
Well that's my point. LAX is proof this doesn't work in practise, ditto Fort Hood.
The trained and armed are just as vulnerable as fish in a barrel, like the rest of us.
Surprise is everything. War mongers have known that and used it as a tactic since the beginning of time.
Just think - how many borderline personality disorders do you know? Most people have come across one or six crazies masquerading as "normal people" in their time. Imagine if that crazy in the filing room had a gun in his briefcase? The psychopath in the boardroom?
Trayon Martin all over again, all over the country.
Scary.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
