How many innocent lives are your guns worth?

[Dr Kynes]

so you believe in a living, breathing constitution do you? I didn't think you to be a liberal.

that is another false choice.

the constitution is NOT dead because it was NEVER ALIVE.

you are still using semantics to attempt to monopolize the language of debate, which is the classic first (and only) move of the marxist and despot.

your primary assertion, that a stable, reliable constitutional document that means what it says is "dead" also implies that it's time to start shoveling dirt into it's grave.

your secondary assertion, that a constitution that is still viable useful and important must be conceded to be "alive" surrenders the real argument, that the constitution is a self-amending document with a meaning that changes with the vagaries of language and popular culture.

once the semantic tricks have been burned away, the truth remains:

The US Constitution is a vital, viable, and still-relevant document that forms the foundation of our national union, EXACTLY as written 230 years ago.

the process for changing the document is well established, and has been frequently used, but it's not easy, and requires the consent of the people, but not for the last 100 years or so.
the creation of the federal reserve bank marks the beginning of the creeping erosion of the constitution and the national union it establishes, in favour of an authoritarian nation-state with the states reduced to nothing more than provinces.
In 1913, the federal reserve act was fundamentally unconstitutional, and in direct violation of supreme court rulings, but the courts had accepted an idea of direct harm being required for standing, and sovereign immunity of the state, so unless the "Federal Reserve Bank" causes you direct provable harm, NOBODY has standing. in the legal culture which is dominant today, standing is everything, and there can be no grievance without first proving direct harm thus the courts are no remedy against affronts to the constitutional underpinnings of our federation of states. we are now ruled by a series of irreductable assumptions and regualtory fiats which presume guilt, and demand submission to non-existent legislation.

the court's response to any challenge on constitutional ground, in any case regarding federal power is always the same: "We Aint Tryin Ta Hear That!"
the court plugs it's ears and chants "I CANT HEAR YOU! I CANT HEAR YOU!" till the constitutional argument is dropped. only state attorney generals (deliberate, since "attorneys general" is as retarded as "Cars Blue") and pressure groups can push a constiututional case, and then only if the courts approve of the assumptions and the case is so narrowly construed as to be meaningless.

is this the way you think our constitution should be viewed? as some silly Nostradamus style prose which can be interpreted so many ways it loses all meaning? or as a fig leaf to conceal the usurpation of our free and sovereign rights, and the instalation of an autocratic plutocracy?

 

[Figong]

No. My point is guns have a self defense use as well as the offensive use employed by thugs and government, but I repeat myself. What makes sense is to leave others alone and those that do not should expect that some will defend themselves. Anyway....you going to use guns to take away guns?

Good question, if they came to the door and said "We're here to gather your weapons.." I would just laugh and close the door and lock it.

 

[canndo]

Okay, YOU'VE never seen a gun used by government against you. What happens when other people peacefully opt not to participate....are they left alone?

No, they are not and usually now anyway they are controlled with non lethal weapons. Again Rob, you wish for a world without consequences - there is no such place.

 

[canndo]

that is another false choice.

the constitution is NOT dead because it was NEVER ALIVE.

you are still using semantics to attempt to monopolize the language of debate, which is the classic first (and only) move of the marxist and despot.

your primary assertion, that a stable, reliable constitutional document that means what it says is "dead" also implies that it's time to start shoveling dirt into it's grave.

your secondary assertion, that a constitution that is still viable useful and important must be conceded to be "alive" surrenders the real argument, that the constitution is a self-amending document with a meaning that changes with the vagaries of language and popular culture.

once the semantic tricks have been burned away, the truth remains:

The US Constitution is a vital, viable, and still-relevant document that forms the foundation of our national union, EXACTLY as written 230 years ago.

the process for changing the document is well established, and has been frequently used, but it's not easy, and requires the consent of the people, but not for the last 100 years or so.
the creation of the federal reserve bank marks the beginning of the creeping erosion of the constitution and the national union it establishes, in favour of an authoritarian nation-state with the states reduced to nothing more than provinces.
In 1913, the federal reserve act was fundamentally unconstitutional, and in direct violation of supreme court rulings, but the courts had accepted an idea of direct harm being required for standing, and sovereign immunity of the state, so unless the "Federal Reserve Bank" causes you direct provable harm, NOBODY has standing. in the legal culture which is dominant today, standing is everything, and there can be no grievance without first proving direct harm thus the courts are no remedy against affronts to the constitutional underpinnings of our federation of states. we are now ruled by a series of irreductable assumptions and regualtory fiats which presume guilt, and demand submission to non-existent legislation.

the court's response to any challenge on constitutional ground, in any case regarding federal power is always the same: "We Aint Tryin Ta Hear That!"
the court plugs it's ears and chants "I CANT HEAR YOU! I CANT HEAR YOU!" till the constitutional argument is dropped. only state attorney generals (deliberate, since "attorneys general" is as retarded as "Cars Blue") and pressure groups can push a constiututional case, and then only if the courts approve of the assumptions and the case is so narrowly construed as to be meaningless.

is this the way you think our constitution should be viewed? as some silly Nostradamus style prose which can be interpreted so many ways it loses all meaning? or as a fig leaf to conceal the usurpation of our free and sovereign rights, and the instalation of an autocratic plutocracy?

Nope - dead - meaning no longer animate or changing.

 

[canndo]

Good question, if they came to the door and said "We're here to gather your weapons.." I would just laugh a

nd close the door and lock it.

And if they produced a warrant?

 

[PurpleBuz]

No I am not - you are making the same error most make. We cannot stop all children from being killed. We can stop the number that are killed at one time and we can do that by slowing down one's rate of fire or making that rate of fire intermittent.

Yes you are and I'm not making any errors. There are so many ways to hurt innocents, real solutions means focusing on the dangerous criminals and crazies rather than law abiding citizens. You do realize that most of the mass shootings have been caused by white unstable males ? Don't you think our great medical community ought to be able to contain that? Do you also realize that the mass shootings are only a fraction of all violent crimes?

Your switching topics, now your talking about limiting rounds, versus law abiding citizens giving up their arms. Disarming law abiding citizens does not get guns off the street. It takes an incredible amount of police action to get guns off the street, and can easily escalate into a full military lockdown. Gee we just went through a decade of wars trying to disarm populations, and they are still killing people.

 

[Doer]

I have owed the IRS more money than the average person makes in a year - they came at me with no firearm. I have owed child support, they came at me with no firearm. There are other ways and it would seem that you sir may be the one inhabiting that bubble.

Why lie? My father-in-law is an armed IRS agent.

You didn't resist because you knew about deadly force. And you didn't see a gun? Got x-ray vision, now do you?

And if you haven't got a gun pulled on you in a Police stop, you haven't passed the Hunter S. Thompson driving test.

If you don't pay and don't want to go to jail, they will force you with a gun....and maybe a sap for motivation.

You know that, very well. You were willing to pay up quietly or go quietly because they will hurt you if not.

 

[canndo]

Then how will any arms infringements / legislation be enforced?

I have discussed this many times. You will be offered choices, choices you will be induced to make. Should your firearm be registered (which is why I am against such paper trails) you will simply be fined until your weapon is surrendered. Most of those who are so afraid of the government have no idea how it really works to bend you to it's will and I find that very very sad.

Because so long as you are ignorant of how it works you can never combat it. even with your precious weapons.

 

[canndo]

Why lie? My father-in-law is an armed IRS agent.

You didn't resist because you knew about deadly force. And you didn't see a gun? Got x-ray vision, now do you?

That's nice for your father in law.


I never saw one, in fact I was never visited - why? when all confiscation can be done remotely - no agent necessary. And until you have had a serous bout with child support services you have no idea what can be done to you without a weapon in evidence.

 

[kelly4]

Good question, if they came to the door and said "We're here to gather your weapons.." I would just laugh and close the door and lock it.

Canndo might be correct. The guy who comes for your gun might not be armed.

The guys who come after him because you didn't turn over your guns though...will be heavily armed.

 

[canndo]

Yes you are and I'm not making any errors. There are so many ways to hurt innocents, real solutions means focusing on the dangerous criminals and crazies rather than law abiding citizens. You do realize that most of the mass shootings have been caused by white unstable males ? Don't you think our great medical community ought to be able to contain that? Do you also realize that the mass shootings are only a fraction of all violent crimes?

Your switching topics, now your talking about limiting rounds, versus law abiding citizens giving up their arms. Disarming law abiding citizens does not get guns off the street. It takes an incredible amount of police action to get guns off the street, and can easily escalate into a full military lockdown. Gee we just went through a decade of wars trying to disarm populations, and they are still killing people.

When and where have you seen me advocate for the confiscation of firearms? (here's a hint - you havn't).

Now you have the same dilema. Should you curtail the 2nd? or should you curtail most of the rest of the document by allowing our medical community to "imprison" those they deem crazy enough to kill someone? Without trial, without jury.

(by the way, I don't think much of our "great" medical community anyway, it is others who tout it wrongly as the finest on earth)

 

[kelly4]

Canndo once told me that under no circumstance regarding guns, will a man wearing jackboots ever come to your house.

Hey canndo, what would have happened had you told the Government that you would keep not paying their taxes and state imposed child support? Do you think a guy with a gun would eventually show up at your door?

 

[Figong]

And if they produced a warrant?

They better slip a copy under the door, and it better have an exact list of what they're after, and locations within the residence where they expect to find it.. or they get nothing. Also better include address, date, judges signature, amongst other things. Worst case, they kick in the door anyway even if warrant isn't valid - just produces plenty of ammo for a defense attorney to rip them a few new assholes. They may have suspected something was there to 'take', but if not detailed.. no va.

 

[canndo]

Canndo might be correct. The guy who comes for your gun might not be armed.

The guys who come after him because you didn't turn over your guns though...will be heavily armed.

If your arms are registered - anywhere,no one will ever "come after your guns" - they will wait and you will bring them.

 

[canndo]

They better slip a copy under the door, and it better have an exact list of what they're after, and locations within the residence where they expect to find it.. or they get nothing. Also better include address, date, judges signature, amongst other things. Worst case, they kick in the door anyway even if warrant isn't valid - just produces plenty of ammo for a defense attorney to rip them a few new assholes. They may have suspected something was there to 'take', but if not detailed.. no va.

As it should be with any warrant, but suppose it is legal and desribes place to be searched and the items to be taken.

 

[Mr Neutron]

If your arms are registered - anywhere,no one will ever "come after your guns" - they will wait and you will bring them.

... and if I refuse?

 

[Dr Kynes]

Nope - dead - meaning no longer animate or changing.

more semantics.

the constitutin is amendable, but this does not concede your "living document" fallacy.

the "living document" fallacy reduces the constitution to nothing but a dated "who's on first" routine where the meaning of words is subsumed by the desired outcome.

the amendment procedure is still viable, but is now rarely used, since "living document" fetishists have declared it amends itself based on their desired meaning of the moment.

the constitution is NOT dead, and it is NOT alive, it is ELEMENTAL, as the foundation of our union, and thats all that it requires.

you cannot talk the constitution away, or argue me into the ground with petulant demands that i accept your flawed premise.

the constitution exists, and you cannot change that with all the hot air in washington.

 

[canndo]

They better slip a copy under the door, and it better have an exact list of what they're after, and locations within the residence where they expect to find it.. or they get nothing. Also better include address, date, judges signature, amongst other things. Worst case, they kick in the door anyway even if warrant isn't valid - just produces plenty of ammo for a defense attorney to rip them a few new assholes. They may have suspected something was there to 'take', but if not detailed.. no va.

Of course there is one more thing - your having been served with a restraining order, whereupon after a hearing you will be asked to surrender your weapons - forthwith - in many states - including mine.

 

[Doer]

I have discussed this many times. You will be offered choices, choices you will be induced to make. Should your firearm be registered (which is why I am against such paper trails) you will simply be fined until your weapon is surrendered. Most of those who are so afraid of the government have no idea how it really works to bend you to it's will and I find that very very sad.

Because so long as you are ignorant of how it works you can never combat it. even with your precious weapons.

They cannot fine you if you are not on the list. I won't be made to surrender what they don't know about, bubble boy. You wish to push this impasse. Fines, then surrender unless we act reasonable, law-abiding and you get to Ratchet that defnition? There is another alternative. It is ugly and that is what you will get.

 

[canndo]

more semantics.

the constitutin is amendable, but this does not concede your "living document" fallacy.

the "living document" fallacy reduces the constitution to nothing but a dated "who's on first" routine where the meaning of words is subsumed by the desired outcome.

the amendment procedure is still viable, but is now rarely used, since "living document" fetishists have declared it amends itself based on their desired meaning of the moment.

the constitution is NOT dead, and it is NOT alive, it is ELEMENTAL, as the foundation of our union, and thats all that it requires.

you cannot talk the constitution away, or argue me into the ground with petulant demands that i accept your flawed premise.

the constitution exists, and you cannot change that with all the hot air in washington.

Doc you use the word semantics as if it were a bit filthy. It is all, as without meaning, words are pretty much nothing but letters.


My premise is a logical order for those who believe that the constitution is to be interpreted only in the view of the founders and in no other way - thus, as it';s founders are dead so to their work.