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.
also, registering leads to disarmanent, and banning certains types of firearms or magazines limits the rights of the people. the Constitution and Bill of Rights are there to limit the goverment, not the people.
also, registering leads to disarmanent, and banning certains types of firearms or magazines limits the rights of the people. the Constitution and Bill of Rights are there to limit the goverment, not the people.
So... you are changing your assertion here towards a position that is at least linguistically defensible. That's a good thing, because you were frankly not making much sense previously.
That said, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are about managing the inherent conflicts that naturally arise between the rights of the individual and the rights of the community. It is the same reason we have developed systems of morals, ethics and civil/criminal law. And I agree with you completely that the inherent foundational bias written into the Constitution is in favor of individual liberty.
And yet, you will note that while the Constitution limits the coercive power of government in certain areas, it asserts the coercive power of government in others. The preamble of the Constitution recognizes the critical centrality of the community; "We the People..." not "Me the person..."
The Framers did not have a warm and fuzzy relationship with anarchy.
The very suggestion of some to force those who have become poor & collect UE or welfare to get drug testing is also taking someones rights away.
What comes around goes around.
Don't school me & try to explain that 'it's not the same'. It is.
When we take rights away from anyone in this country & force them to comply, we are actually opening the door for more & more rules. Eventually those who suggest such things will also become effected.
how is requiring a drug test for welfare a problem....a drug test is required for many things..why do you think the 'government check' welfare people should get off??
So... you are changing your assertion here towards a position that is at least linguistically defensible. That's a good thing, because you were frankly not making much sense previously.
That said, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are about managing the inherent conflicts that naturally arise between the rights of the individual and the rights of the community. It is the same reason we have developed systems of morals, ethics and civil/criminal law. And I agree with you completely that the inherent foundational bias written into the Constitution is in favor of individual liberty.
And yet, you will note that while the Constitution limits the coercive power of government in certain areas, it asserts the coercive power of government in others. The preamble of the Constitution recognizes the critical centrality of the community; "We the People..." not "Me the person..."
The Framers did not have a warm and fuzzy relationship with anarchy.
true the framers did not have or want a anarchy, but they did want a limited goverment. it is just that the politicians forget that.
I dont speak proper english, and I doubt very many americans do. they speak american, which has been called a bastardized version of the english language, but I prefer to call it the american language with a bunch of different dialects.
true the framers did not have or want a anarchy, but they did want a limited goverment. it is just that the politicians forget that.
It is always dangerous to throw out blanket generalities like that, because all generalities are wrong. Even this one.
First and foremost, why do we have the Constitution at all, instead of still operating under the Articles of Confederation? This is because the Framers understood that under the Articles the government was too limited and it was not working. They specifically wrote the Constitution to adjust the balance in the direction of greater governmental power.
The debate between the Federalists and the Anti-federalists could not make this point any more explicitly. And ultimately, it was the federalists who won.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching
I dont speak proper english, and I doubt very many americans do. they speak american, which has been called a bastardized version of the english language, but I prefer to call it the american language with a bunch of different dialects.
Your preference is noted. It is unlikely to gain much sympathy from people who actually know what a dialect is.
Okay...how about depression....should everyone who is diagnosed with depression lose their right to possess a firearm?
I am not a psychiatrist or psychologist. You are asking me to make a distinction I am frankly not qualified to make.
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.
