National Unhappy Valentines Day - Biden Administration rolls out new GC agenda

[Bob D]

It appears that you can lead a gun owner that votes democrat to the facts on who is behind the infringement of their rights but you can't make them think.

I have asked about that and had some great discussions on what freedom means and what value we place on our rights. The general consensus among my "gun-totin' liberal" friends and acquaintances is that gun ownership is only one of many rights they are concerned about, and the rest of those concerns outweigh their concern on gun rights.

 

[CRBMoA]

Good luck defending the remaining rights after #2 falls.

 

[Bob D]

Good luck defending the remaining rights after #2 falls.

For much of my life, I believed that the 2nd amendment was necessary to protect the rest. I have seen other rights being slowly taken, and I have never seen those rights successfully protected with firearms. I have come to the conclusion that the 2nd hasn't done as much as a voice and a vote does... and even those don't do a whole lot without a massive social movement. There are also plenty of nations where firearms are much more heavily restricted, and the people I know who live there still have rights and freedoms. In my opinion, the common people's only real defense against tyranny is in the value of our labor; strikes and unions (despite their problems) have done more to protect freedom than private firearms have.

I'm not certain that I want these rights if it means living in a society where everyone is just a temporary injustice away from killing each other. I'm not a fortune teller or a philosopher or a sociologist or a great mind, and I won't pretend I know what effects any of these policy changes would ultimately have on our society. I know that I love my community and my family, and I will protect those however I believe is the most effective way in that moment.

 

[guido1161]

I have asked about that and had some great discussions on what freedom means and what value we place on our rights. The general consensus among my "gun-totin' liberal" friends and acquaintances is that gun ownership is only one of many rights they are concerned about, and the rest of those concerns outweigh their concern on gun rights.

None of the other rights matter if you cannot protect yourself or your loved ones. If I'm not allowed to own the type of firearm the fits my abilities or particular situation and have to protect myself or my loved ones but am unable do so, the perceived right to free health care, a $15 minimum wage or my having my student loan debt forgiven doesn't matter if I'm dead or burying one of my children or my spouse. Is there some hyperbole in that statement, maybe so, but no person has a right to tell another person how to protect themselves or their loved ones. The 2nd Amendment does not give us the right to protect ourselves it protects our inalienable right to do so.

 

[Bob D]

As a non-philosopher, here's a philosophical question that I don't have any answer for: If a right is inalienable, why does it need protection?

 

[CRBMoA]

Because the Government does not understand the meanings of EITHER 'inalienable' nor 'Shall Not Be Infringed'.

Are you new here?

 

[Mikej]

None of the other rights matter if you cannot protect yourself or your loved ones. If I'm not allowed to own the type of firearm the fits my abilities or particular situation and have to protect myself or my loved ones but am unable do so, the perceived right to free health care, a $15 minimum wage or my having my student loan debt forgiven doesn't matter if I'm dead or burying one of my children or my spouse. Is there some hyperbole in that statement, maybe so, but no person has a right to tell another person how to protect themselves or their loved ones. The 2nd Amendment does not give us the right to protect ourselves it protects our inalienable right to do so.

Considering that all over the Northwest and California they are making many of what use to be crimes, legal. People that commit lesser crimes, now no longer punishable crimes, generally move on to serious crimes. The elected officials have decided crime is okay, as long as it's not to serious. We're already in a place where police won't respond to a burglary. How long before they don't respond to the beating of an old man?

 

[Bob D]

Because the Government does not understand the meanings of EITHER 'inalienable' nor 'Shall Not Be Infringed'.

Are you new here?

I'm not; been here for close to a decade. Is an inalienable right one that cannot be taken or given away, or one that should not be taken or given away?

 

[CRBMoA]

I'm not; been here for close to a decade. Is an inalienable right one that cannot be taken or given away, or one that should not be taken or given away?

Cannot.

I have neither the time nor the desire to have an impromptu civics class.

Inalienable = CANNOT be infringed

Bad Law = Infringement

 

[EHJ]

As a non-philosopher, here's a philosophical question that I don't have any answer for: If a right is inalienable, why does it need protection?

Because it's a subjective adjective.
"Not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away or denied"

And it depends on if this, "another" agrees with the base precept.

- "I have an inalienable right to this land!"

- "Lol. Manifest Destiny."

 

[Bob D]

Cannot.

I have neither the time nor the desire to have an impromptu civics class.

Inalienable = CANNOT be infringed

Bad Law = Infringement

If it cannot be infringed, then how is a bad law, or anything else, doing so?
I have enough time and desire to continue. I am not demanding your participation if you do not, and I wish you a pleasant day.

I believe that the right to self defense is inalienable in that my mind and body give me the authority to expend them both while defending myself from anything that threatens me. However, my mind and body do not necessarily grant me the right to be successful in that defense, and there is no universal law of nature that grants everyone on the planet a firearm, so it is difficult for me to come to the logical conclusion that my right to self defense (inalienable) and my right to firearm ownership (definitely seems... alienable) are the same thing.

It is impossible to take a belief from someone. It is very possible to take someone's posessions, or even their life or liberty; it happens every day in every society on the planet. So I'm not certain what was meant when the word "inalienable" was used by the founders. They set up our constitution to protect these rights expressly because they believed that those rights were being infringed upon by their existing governance. So obviously, they knew that these things CAN be taken from them; otherwise there would be no need to protect them. So what exactly did they mean when they said that our creator has endowed us with the inalienable right to life and liberty? They were, at that very moment, seeing themselves being alienated from those rights. It's been a puzzling thought to me for a long time.

 

[EHJ]

If it cannot be infringed, then how is a bad law, or anything else, doing so?
I have enough time and desire to continue. I am not demanding your participation if you do not, and I wish you a pleasant day.

I believe that the right to self defense is inalienable in that my mind and body give me the authority to expend them both while defending myself from anything that threatens me. However, my mind and body do not necessarily grant me the right to be successful in that defense, and there is no universal law of nature that grants everyone on the planet a firearm, so it is difficult for me to come to the logical conclusion that my right to self defense (inalienable) and my right to firearm ownership (definitely seems... alienable) are the same thing.

It is impossible to take a belief from someone. It is very possible to take someone's posessions, or even their life or liberty; it happens every day in every society on the planet. So I'm not certain what was meant when the word "inalienable" was used by the founders. They set up our constitution to protect these rights expressly because they believed that those rights were being infringed upon by their existing governance. So obviously, they knew that these things CAN be taken from them; otherwise there would be no need to protect them. So what exactly did they mean when they said that our creator has endowed us with the inalienable right to life and liberty? They were, at that very moment, seeing themselves being alienated from those rights. It's been a puzzling thought to me for a long time.

I've always been perplexed by the phrase, "Unlimited Imagination."
Imagination by it's own definition is limitless.


"Semi Automatic Revolver"

 

[CRBMoA]

If it cannot be infringed, then how is a bad law, or anything else, doing so?
I have enough time and desire to continue. I am not demanding your participation if you do not, and I wish you a pleasant day.

I believe that the right to self defense is inalienable in that my mind and body give me the authority to expend them both while defending myself from anything that threatens me. However, my mind and body do not necessarily grant me the right to be successful in that defense, and there is no universal law of nature that grants everyone on the planet a firearm, so it is difficult for me to come to the logical conclusion that my right to self defense (inalienable) and my right to firearm ownership (definitely seems... alienable) are the same thing.

It is impossible to take a belief from someone. It is very possible to take someone's posessions, or even their life or liberty; it happens every day in every society on the planet. So I'm not certain what was meant when the word "inalienable" was used by the founders. They set up our constitution to protect these rights expressly because they believed that those rights were being infringed upon by their existing governance. So obviously, they knew that these things CAN be taken from them; otherwise there would be no need to protect them. So what exactly did they mean when they said that our creator has endowed us with the inalienable right to life and liberty? They were, at that very moment, seeing themselves being alienated from those rights. It's been a puzzling thought to me for a long time.

I do believe you are being genuine, but I do not believe we are talking about the same thing.

Variously, 'inalienable' will be defined as 'cannot be infringed', instead of the more accurate 'endowed by Our Creator'.

Where you fall on that spectrum will frame how you view the question.

I know the rules. I know how it is supposed to work.

See, here's the thing. A bumble bee is not aerodynamic and should not be able to fly. Yet it does. And whether or not it SHOULD be able to fly, it DOES fly, and if it winds up in my car I am going to have to deal with it.

Unconstitutional laws and policies that seek to infringe on our God given rights are De Facto illegal, but it takes some legal work and wrangling and maneuvering to bring resolution to such laws.

That legal work is generically referred to as 'defense' of those rights.

 

[Bob D]

The bumblebee was endowed by it's creator with the unalienable right to flight?

I agree with what you're saying about the meaning, for the record. I'm just not sure that I can find a logical path to "rights" being anything more than "things that the majority of a society agree to collectively protect." and that logical path leads me to the conclusion that if the majority of the American people decide that we no longer have the right to something, like the ownership of other humans, or emergency medical care, or derivatives trading, or defrauding our neighbors, or owning guns... then we will have some magnitude of conflict about that issue with the portion that disagrees. That conflict will be settled in a variety of ways ranging from popular ballot initiatives, representatives passing laws, court decisions, market movements, and also straight up physical conflict, but eventually, the matter will be settled, at least for a while. for instance, if 90% of the country were to suddenly decide that private gun ownership was a threat to their life and liberty, then it wouldn't be long until we lost that right; no matter what would happen while resolving the "difference of opinion."

For the record, almost all of what I'm saying here is said as a devil's advocate; if the government decided to take my guns away from me without the support of the people in my community, they would find it very difficult to do so, and if the people in my community decided to take my guns away from me, I would find a different community. I support the right to firearm ownership with any rate of fire and magazines of any size. I do however try to approach my thoughts on that as beliefs, rather than universal truths. My beliefs cannot be taken from me or dictated to me. My guns can very much be taken from me; though it is difficult to imagine a scenario where it is worth anyone's trouble to try to do so.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Something to consider here :

Whether someone :
Can take away your guns or not....
Cares to push a certain agenda , bills , laws , requirements , restrictions , bans , etc...

May not as important as the perceived threat of the same.
The perceived threat can carry more "weight" than the actual implementation of said acts.

"Weight" as in fear and division...fear and division , can be powerful , because they are unknowns.
A existing law or such , while it may be harmful to the 2A , is at least a known quantity , and can be 'easier" dealt with.

Fearfulness of something , can cause one to act on poor judgement.
Division , can mean that one is always one step behind , so to speak of the opposition.

Please note that none of the above is meant to be read as :
I think that President Biden's firearm's policies are not harmful to the 2A and gun owners...
'Cause I think that they are.
Or that I am in any way , shape or form in-line with those who want to restrict gun Rights.
Andy

 

[powersbj]

An inalienable right is one you have because you exist. Power (political, physical, judicial etc) used to supress the free exercise of rights is completely irrelevant, the right still exists. The same is true of any law, just because you can break a law with no consequences does not mean it doesn't exist.
In the context of the second amendment, it is a truth self evident for the purpose of defending your life or the life of your countrymen you get guns and can join a well equipped/trained/maintained militia.
I suspect back in the day this thinking was a way to morally justify rebelling against the crown.

 

[USMC-03]

Something to consider here :

Whether someone :
Can take away your guns or not....
Cares to push a certain agenda , bills , laws , requirements , restrictions , bans , etc...

May not as important as the perceived threat of the same.
The perceived threat can carry more "weight" than the actual implementation of said acts.

"Weight" as in fear and division...fear and division , can be powerful , because they are unknowns.
A existing law or such , while it may be harmful to the 2A , is at least a known quantity , and can be 'easier" dealt with.

Fearfulness of something , can cause one to act on poor judgement.
Division , can mean that one is always one step behind , so to speak of the opposition.

Please note that none of the above is meant to be read as :
I think that President Biden's firearm's policies are not harmful to the 2A and gun owners...
'Cause I think that they are.
Or that I am in any way , shape or form in-line with those who want to restrict gun Rights.
Andy

Exactly so, Andy. The words now are vigilance and perspective.

 

[Tony617]

Because it's a subjective adjective.
"Not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away or denied"

And it depends on if this, "another" agrees with the base precept.

- "I have an inalienable right to this land!"

- "Lol. Manifest Destiny."

That was one of the causes for the war of 1812 was manifest destiny and numerous "Orders in Counsel" by the British. I wrote a small research paper on the war of 1812 in my Junior year of high school.

I took a bus to the local community college since they had a well stocked library back in the 1980s.

 

[Caveman Jim]

Where are the people who like to say "the government isn't going to take your guns", "it's so low on the list, ain't gonna happen", and those other excuses they have for voting in tyrants and spitting in the face of one of the main purposes of this site?


Yeah, you know who you are...

They are on my ignore list...

 

[Boss]

Any bets on when the next mass shooting that propels this will be?

Didn't take long...

At least 3 people are dead after a shooting broke out at a Louisiana gun range, police say (msn.com)

$.02 worth,
Boss