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.
Your right to life, liberty and happiness is subject to law. And, your right to protect your life, family and property is likewise limited by law, as many convicted of manslaughter have learned to their detriment.
And a great number of people who were exonerated....and in turn a great number of subhumans who will never live to tell of their foolish decisions in engaging with said people.
One is not at liberty to act beyond the limits of the law. All rights, including the right of self-defense and defense of property, exists by law; which is to say that it is not unrestricted, much less absolute.
Well not everybody subscribes to the law as their personal ideology now do they?
That being said, the law DOESN'T restrict individuals in many cases from killing somebody in the name of self defense.. There are SYG and castle doctrine laws...
Thankfully I live in a state both laws and are pretty clearly defined.
I would worry about being on the right side of the law, if I were you. Those that run afoul of the law will not get its protection, and will suffer its sanctions.
The Declaration of Independence was not a foundational document; it was a declaration of our independence from the colonial rule by the English Monarchy, and an act of war. Thomas Jefferson’s ideas about natural rights were not adopted by the framers of our Constitution. (Jefferson was not a framer of the Constitution. He was serving as Ambassador to France at the time of the Constitutional Convention; and except for his correspondence with some of the delegates, what resulted was largely the work of James Madison. Even his draft Constitution and Declaration of Rights for Virginia was rejected in favor of the model of George Mason.) Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed . . . ." The framework of our government, however, did not incorporate the ideals expressed by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. The intoxicating ideas of Rousseau and Locke that Jefferson so admired, and that inspired our revolution (and that of France as well), gave way to a more sober expression of our rights and freedoms in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.The framers of our Constitution created a nation of laws and not men; which represents a compromise between the rights of individuals and the power of the state. All men are not created equal, they are equal under the law; and the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not unalienable, they are subject to law.
You were doing great Wendell, until the bolded portions. But if it is your intention here to declare Thomas Jefferson as not one of our founding fathers, while also denying any linkage between the Declaration and the Constitution, this can only be a product of your liberal induced confusion, and the selective recollection of historical facts that liberals have been indoctrinated with, and consequently rely upon to skirt the major flaws in their positions.
I made reference to the Declaration of Independence because in it reflected the moral and philosophical disposition of the founders, while the Constitution was more of a technical document, focused on the nuts and bolts construction of a new government joining the 13 colonies into a compact. But to suggest as you have ... and for which I've heard the same arguments before .. that the Constitution and Declaration are entirely separate entities sharing no particular philosophical linkage ... is quite the deliberate deception, Wendell, which is the root of your misperceptions in so many areas.
First, the Declaration was not so much an act of war, or even a declaration of war, as it was a formal confirmation of a war that had started more than a year prior to it's drafting, which began in April of 1775, at Lexington and Concord. It formally defined the reasons for the decision to separate from the authority of Great Britain, including clearly delineated violations of the rights of the colonies by the Crown, which compelled that separation. And, these words .... "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed ..." are often referred to as the most famous words in the English language, and define the ideological foundation of our nation, at the very moment of it's formal birth announcement.
Secondly, Jefferson only produced the first draft of the Declaration, but it was not a personal correspondence between he and the King. It was edited and approved by the Continental Congress, on July 4th, 1776 ... you know ... the colonial legislature that also drafted and edited the Constitution? Therefore, I think it a more rational and honest position to recognize the Declaration as reflective of the sentiments of that body politic, and not simply Jefferson's personal and divergent views, as you seem to want to suggest here. And in light of that fact, one would have to then come to the only rational conclusion that those philosophical principles outlined in the Declaration must be considered the foundational philosophy of the Constitution. You claim the exact opposite .. when you state "The framework of our government, however, did not incorporate the ideals expressed by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence". That's just blathering nonsense Wendell. One can find no rational, reasonable, or logical basis to support such a view. You would have us believe that the founders ignored their fundamental ideology regarding the proper conduct of government, clearly defined in the Declaration of Independence, when crafting the constitution that would guide the governing of our nation? No, Wendell ... no such circular reasoning was employed there .... this Orwellian nonsense is a modern, liberal manifestation of pure double think, necessary for liberals to employ when intentionally misinterpreting the constitution for political expediency.
And last but not least ... this statement " .... represents a compromise between the rights of individuals and the power of the state" is a direct attack on the wisdom of the founders and the common sense of their posterity. The Constitution was not a compromise at all ... it represents the framework of a national government that the founders found to be necessary, while clearly defining it's limitations to ensure that it would not trample upon the rights of the individual they deemed to be unalienable, and so often violated by the British. The only compromise comes in the form of the clearly false interpretations that "compromise" the original intent.
Relative to the 2nd Amendment ... " .... the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" leaves no room for "compromise". It doesn't say "shall not be infringed, except when" ... or "shall not be infringed too much" ... it says "Shall Not Be Infringed". PERIOD.
Let this serve as a lesson to those who might be persuaded by your clever mixing of fact and fiction. What might at first glance seem reasonable, falls apart at the seams upon closer and more careful examination.
Last edited by GuyNTexas; 07-22-2012 at 11:35 AM..
I would worry about being on the right side of the law, if I were you. Those that run afoul of the law will not get its protection, and will suffer its sanctions.
Your warnings do not seem to be taken very seriously by the biggest law breakers of our nation ... that of the bribe taking miscreants in the US Congress, and public enemies like Obama and Holder.
Law is a funny thing, Wendell ... they change all the time, while fundamental rights never change. When those ever changing laws violate fundamental rights, they are not laws at all .. according to the highest law of the land, the Constitution.
We have a lot of such non-laws in operation today ... it's called "color of law" ... they masquerade as law .. but they gain their only legitimacy by force of violence .. and not actual force of law.
Yes. In an era where people will trample each other to death at a freaking Wal Mart for a %$&* $10 toaster on black friday ... you're damed straight we need to maintain the right to have that gun. We are embarking on a financial calamity greater than the Great Depression at a time where 90% of the populace are not self sufficient as was the case during the first implosion of the economy. If you think that these types of mindless animals won't go off the deep end when they find themselves hungry and destitute, just sit their and wait for it. But don't bother to dial 911 ... it won't do you a bit of good.
We have major cities in the United States TODAY that are more dangerous than Baghdad, Iraq, though I doubt any sane person would want to stroll the streets of Baghdad unarmed.
We have towns and cities across the country who are making massive cuts to police and emergency response due to budget deficits, and no time in the past 50 years is the need for personal firearms greater than it is in 2012 under the circumstances we currently face, with the likelihood things are going to get worse before they get better.
What history would you be referring to comrade? What bloody history is there that shows that the path to your liberal utopia has been paved by disarming the populace? There are HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dead people that would argue with you on this baseless point.
I've got a better question for you .... what glorious evidence can you point to that would calm the fears of those who have this irrational distrust government? Is it the TSA that believes they can molest you with impunity? Is it the the government that believes they can snatch you off the street and incarcerate you indefinitely, without a warrant of arrest or the need for due process, and keep you there forever and without a trial or even a lawyer? A nation that has more people incarcerated than any other nation on earth? A nation who has shown such disregard for the sanctity of human life that it's secretary of state considered 1 Million Iraqi children dead from sanctions worth the price ... and a similar collection of sociopaths who are champing at the bit to launch another war, this time against Iran and the Hundreds of Thousands of innocent civilians who will surely be murdered in the process? That trustworthy and benevolent government?
Give us a little evidence to assuage our irrational fears, won't you?
It's not a "craving" ... it's a practical necessity, recognized by those who have decided not to place their heads up their backsides, and can see with their unencumbered view of the real world, including the number of freely roaming lunatics, morons and imbeciles that seem to make up such a frighteningly significant portion of the populace these days ... and I'm not referring to the law abiding owners of firearms.
Yes, we do need to protect ourselves, and it's both our right and responsibility to do so. And yes, sometimes that includes each other ... just ask the folks in Colorado ... had those movie goers been armed, that LUNATIC might have been stopped before he ran out of bullets.
And I've got news for you ..... just the firearm owners in this country represent the largest army on earth, and if it were not for that fact ... we would have already seen the imposition of greater levels of tyranny than we are currently seeing unfold. That's why we are being economically attacked, and not militarily. But an attack is an attack ... and you have to be blind as a bat not to see it.
If you are going to intentionally change and misrepresent posts via editing quotations there is no point in having a discussion. Changing people's quotes shows a clear, obvious, and intentional disregard for honesty, and any desire to actually have a civil discussion. If you did such in an academic paper, or discussion you would likely be sanctioned or expelled and if you did such in a court of law, you would be held in contempt.
Last edited by Randomstudent; 07-22-2012 at 12:56 PM..
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.
. But if it is your intention here to declare Thomas Jefferson as not one of our founding fathers, while also denying any linkage between the Declaration and the Constitution, this can only be a product of your liberal induced confusion, and the selective recollection of historical facts that liberals have been indoctrinated with, and consequently rely upon to skirt the major flaws in their positions. 
