Know Your Rights

irishpat183

Banned
Messages
5,625
Reaction score
504
i recognize your concern over protection from the government, but how do you propose that we resolve the issue of the intent of the founding fathers? does intent fall by the wayside if justice fails by way of vast changes in society over hundreds of years? do you decide? do we decide? do we disagree? what is the purpose of government if not to experiment through legislation? accepting the reality that the government needs to legislate, sometimes against incongruous with the express language of the constitution, does not prohibit one from disagreeing with such legislation.

decisions need to be made, for better or worse. those in power have been either elected or appointed via a series of checks and balances that are at some point subject to and influenced by public opinion. or at least predominant public opinion. i'm mostly playing devil's advocate here to get a better understanding of to what degree you stand behind your comment on distrusting the government to decide what's best. the reality is that there are a plethora of opinions on things like gun control.

whose opinion should control the matter? is there ever a point where it's acceptable to diverge from something like the second amendment? many say yes, and some say now. i personally think there's a middle ground. an absolute right to bear arms, of any kind, seems unreasonable to me in light of the innovations leading to high powered full automatic weapons which may not have been considered in the 18th century. i also believe that knee jerk reactions to violent tragedies by legislation can create a slippery slope that over reaches constitutional rights. my point is there's flexibility here, or at least potential for flexibility, such that we're not locked into all or nothing positions.

so again, who decides what is best for us as citizens? do citizens themselves? how is that handled when we disagree? what if your position on something like this is in the minority amongst your fellow citizens? did the founding fathers know what was best for us?

edit: spelling

Ourselves. As free people. The reason we have a constitution is to protect the individual from govenrment. The reason we are here today is because people (the minority) fled overbearing and controlling leadership. This country was founded on the idea of personal liberty.

Government has it's role. Don't get me wrong, I'm not for total anarchy....but our current government is way outta control.

I hope I never get to the point of asking someone else (especially a power hungry government) "what's best for me"
 

irishpat183

Banned
Messages
5,625
Reaction score
504
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/T5Rb_3GlMTM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

That motorcycle driver is a p*ssy.

Dude, ask the cop for his insurance and tell him you'll see him in court.



And this is your "protection" people.
 
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
Just out of curiosity, the guy has his tape, and you can see that he indicated and braked properly. What else would you do?
 

irishpat183

Banned
Messages
5,625
Reaction score
504
Just out of curiosity, the guy has his tape, and you can see that he indicated and braked properly. What else would you do?

At the very least I'd put in a complaint.

What an a$$hole that cop was.


"I can write you a sh*tload of tickets"...LOL! Like what!!!???
 

Folsteam_Ahead

Active member
Messages
721
Reaction score
65
Ourselves. As free people. The reason we have a constitution is to protect the individual from govenrment. The reason we are here today is because people (the minority) fled overbearing and controlling leadership. This country was founded on the idea of personal liberty.

Government has it's role. Don't get me wrong, I'm not for total anarchy....but our current government is way outta control.

I hope I never get to the point of asking someone else (especially a power hungry government) "what's best for me"

that's rather ideological. you conveniently picked one question to answer. it would be nice of you to address the others.

otherwise, i'm not sure how to even approach your response, so i'll list of the same/more questions. how do the logistics of 300M people "deciding what's best for us" work? what if we disagree? what if the each position will suffer violations of personal liberty if they lose? is your interpretation of the constitution better than mine?

i'm just not sure you've really thought this through.

edit: after rereading your post i'd like to add, what if what's best for me isn't what's best for you? government or no, the people will disagree on "what's best for us" based on that issue alone. decentralizing government isn't a magic pill that saves personal liberty. it will just create a new way for everyone to argue over what's best for us.
 
Last edited:

irishpat183

Banned
Messages
5,625
Reaction score
504
that's rather ideological. you conveniently picked one question to answer. it would be nice of you to address the others.

otherwise, i'm not sure how to even approach your response, so i'll list of the same/more questions. how do the logistics of 300M people "deciding what's best for us" work? what if we disagree? what if the each position will suffer violations of personal liberty if they lose? is your interpretation of the constitution better than mine?

i'm just not sure you've really thought this through.

edit: after rereading your post i'd like to add, what if what's best for me isn't what's best for you? government or no, the people will disagree on "what's best for us" based on that issue alone. decentralizing government isn't a magic pill that saves personal liberty. it will just create a new way for everyone to argue over what's best for us.



That's great! Do what's best for you! Of course, as long as you're not infringing on the rights of others.

It's like the gay marriage issue. I think government should treat everyone equal under out laws. No matter your sexual preference. They should be allowed to be married like everyone else. Now...does that mean I have to agree or accept that lifestyle? Absolutely not. And I shouldn't be forced too. Government must...but I dont. Unfortunately, that very sentence somehow makes me a homophobe or bigot...etc. in today's world. Because I disagree with a minority group, I'm now "infringing" on their rights. That is the problem. We need to re-education on what is and is not guaranteed by our founding docs. Everyone loving you for who you are...is not a right.

Its good that you bring up the logistics of 300MM people. Because I like to bring up is what's "good for the people" to dismantle a health care system that currently covers over 80% of that population in favor of the very few? Why is it that we pass laws that favor the few over the many? Government does so many things that go against doing what's best for

My biggest issue with our current system is that we legislate not with logic, but with emotion.


(I know i did a fair amount of ranting, but I'm hoping it gives you an idea of where I sit)
 

Folsteam_Ahead

Active member
Messages
721
Reaction score
65
That's great! Do what's best for you! Of course, as long as you're not infringing on the rights of others.

It's like the gay marriage issue. I think government should treat everyone equal under out laws. No matter your sexual preference. They should be allowed to be married like everyone else. Now...does that mean I have to agree or accept that lifestyle? Absolutely not. And I shouldn't be forced too. Government must...but I dont. Unfortunately, that very sentence somehow makes me a homophobe or bigot...etc. in today's world. Because I disagree with a minority group, I'm now "infringing" on their rights. That is the problem. We need to re-education on what is and is not guaranteed by our founding docs. Everyone loving you for who you are...is not a right.

Its good that you bring up the logistics of 300MM people. Because I like to bring up is what's "good for the people" to dismantle a health care system that currently covers over 80% of that population in favor of the very few? Why is it that we pass laws that favor the few over the many? Government does so many things that go against doing what's best for

My biggest issue with our current system is that we legislate not with logic, but with emotion.


(I know i did a fair amount of ranting, but I'm hoping it gives you an idea of where I sit)

what if those things guaranteed by our foundational documents produces an unjust result? no change?

edit: disregard. i'm going to cease hoping that i'll get direct answers to my questions. you pick one or two and dance around the others with comments about gay rights and health care. you even mentioned the word logistics, but didn't come close to providing an answer pertaining to the logistics of your prior post.
 
Last edited:
Top