Laci, I'm still waiting for answers to the following questions:
1. Why would educated writers such as what our Founders were use the phrase, "the right of the people," if they meant the right of militias or the states?
2. If rights are what the courts say they are and what Congress and state legislatures enforce, then why do we not have an individual right to own and carry firearms presently?
I'm still waiting for your definition of "push" or "right." I'm still waiting for your proof that gun control can't and has never worked. I'm still waiting for you to defend your stand that the rule of law should be ignored. Please tell us the laws (according to YOU) we should ignore, or respect. The 2nd amendment says nothing about conceal, carry, ammunition, or anything else related to guns, so we can outlaw any of those items, right? Back to school professor(?). This time learn something.
1. Push, as you were using it, is slang for sell. You weaseled about on that one, but that's what you meant. A right is something that I am able to choose--say the right to practice a religion or to speak my mind. Or it's the ability to tell the government to shove off unless there's a warrant. We've discussed this matter at length on this site.
2. I've offered Chicago and D.C. so many times here. They are two cities that have the strictest gun control in the country.
3. When the law violates the rights of the people, the people have the right to throw off that law.
4. Since we have a functioning system of elections and representation, despite some warning signs, at present, staying within the system is the right thing to do. There are unjust laws in this country, but the best way to deal with that is to change them at present.
5. If you take away the necessary means for exercising a right, you've violated that right.
Really, Gun-control Jim, I've addressed all of these many times before. Laci has never answered my questions.
As I stated before, there are many definitions for "push" and sell is not mentioned once. You would know that if you bothered to look up the definition of "push" as I instructed you to, not to mention I told you which definition of "push" I was using in my comment, but thanks fir lying again. You have discussed that according to you a right is something outside of the law, that YOU think is proper. Like TN you confuse moral and legal rights, no surprise there. People have a "right" to change the law; not ignore it, or break it. Again you promote YOUR idea of what is a law, not what the law says is a law. Given your irrational thinking, I'm sure you find many laws should just be ignored, to the point of breaking the law. "best way to deal with that is to change them at present." At present? And what in the future will you suggest is a "better" way to change the law? Traitorous thinking. I gave you examples of gun control that worked in America, you never responded. And you never answer my questions. You only call me liar and sock puppet, then wonder why you get no respect. DUH!
Jim, you spew so much filth that if you offered an example, I missed it. Offer it again, and I'll address it--provided you can do so in a manner worthy of rational conversation. Post it in one of the new articles.
Seriously, Laci? You really wanting to open up the topic of religion too?
And what's up with complaining about a "perversion" of a religion? I thought one of y'all's main points over at Penigma was to show contempt for orthodox fundies?
Of course, I guess getting lectures from you on "orthodoxy" makes as much sense as getting ones on "original intent" from you.
Ridiculous. We're a secular, contstitutional republic. But Laci, you're as bad as the fundamentalists.
ReplyDeleteLaci, I'm still waiting for answers to the following questions:
ReplyDelete1. Why would educated writers such as what our Founders were use the phrase, "the right of the people," if they meant the right of militias or the states?
2. If rights are what the courts say they are and what Congress and state legislatures enforce, then why do we not have an individual right to own and carry firearms presently?
I'm still waiting for your definition of "push" or "right."
DeleteI'm still waiting for your proof that gun control can't and has never worked.
I'm still waiting for you to defend your stand that the rule of law should be ignored.
Please tell us the laws (according to YOU) we should ignore, or respect.
The 2nd amendment says nothing about conceal, carry, ammunition, or anything else related to guns, so we can outlaw any of those items, right?
Back to school professor(?). This time learn something.
1. Push, as you were using it, is slang for sell. You weaseled about on that one, but that's what you meant. A right is something that I am able to choose--say the right to practice a religion or to speak my mind. Or it's the ability to tell the government to shove off unless there's a warrant. We've discussed this matter at length on this site.
Delete2. I've offered Chicago and D.C. so many times here. They are two cities that have the strictest gun control in the country.
3. When the law violates the rights of the people, the people have the right to throw off that law.
4. Since we have a functioning system of elections and representation, despite some warning signs, at present, staying within the system is the right thing to do. There are unjust laws in this country, but the best way to deal with that is to change them at present.
5. If you take away the necessary means for exercising a right, you've violated that right.
Really, Gun-control Jim, I've addressed all of these many times before. Laci has never answered my questions.
As I stated before, there are many definitions for "push" and sell is not mentioned once. You would know that if you bothered to look up the definition of "push" as I instructed you to, not to mention I told you which definition of "push" I was using in my comment, but thanks fir lying again.
DeleteYou have discussed that according to you a right is something outside of the law, that YOU think is proper. Like TN you confuse moral and legal rights, no surprise there.
People have a "right" to change the law; not ignore it, or break it. Again you promote YOUR idea of what is a law, not what the law says is a law. Given your irrational thinking, I'm sure you find many laws should just be ignored, to the point of breaking the law. "best way to deal with that is to change them at present." At present? And what in the future will you suggest is a "better" way to change the law? Traitorous thinking.
I gave you examples of gun control that worked in America, you never responded.
And you never answer my questions. You only call me liar and sock puppet, then wonder why you get no respect. DUH!
Jim, you spew so much filth that if you offered an example, I missed it. Offer it again, and I'll address it--provided you can do so in a manner worthy of rational conversation. Post it in one of the new articles.
DeleteIs that all you can do is duck and lie? You had your chance and refused. Now go cry to mama.
DeleteYou had your chance, Jim.
DeleteNo, you had your chance, and I'm still waiting.
DeleteStill waiting
DeleteSeriously, Laci? You really wanting to open up the topic of religion too?
ReplyDeleteAnd what's up with complaining about a "perversion" of a religion? I thought one of y'all's main points over at Penigma was to show contempt for orthodox fundies?
Of course, I guess getting lectures from you on "orthodoxy" makes as much sense as getting ones on "original intent" from you.