Gun Registration Fails...So Sorry...LOL

terminal13 said:
That's quite the assumption. How about the president caving to the "green" energy companies that failed miserably? And speaking of constitutional, why is Obama sitting on the un security council, that in fact is unconstitutional, therefore illegal.
Click to expand...

Please. He's not sitting on it, he "chaired" it for three days of meetings back in 2009.
 
The Gun Lobby’s Dumbest Argument

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/13/the-gun-lobby-s-dumbest-argument.html

faceCOLOR.gif


515a0201e590c.preview-620.jpg


congress_guncontrol.jpg
 
christiefan915 said:
Funny, I don't recall anything in the Constitution about the UN or the Security Council.
Click to expand...

Ill point that out for you then. Section 9, subsection 8. Read it.
1. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

2. The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

3. No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

4. (No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) [Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.]

5. No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

6. No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

7. No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

8. No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
nobody is an angel whose judgement should be trusted. rights are rights because they cannot be compromised upon, only surrendered.
Click to expand...

Rights by their very nature in a society are subject to compromise.

Because you have a right to free speech doesn't mean you can slander someone.

Oops - you just compromised.
 
terminal13 said:
Ill point that out for you then. Section 9, subsection 8. Read it.
1. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

2. The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

3. No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

4. (No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) [Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.]

5. No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

6. No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

7. No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

8. No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
Click to expand...

Again, what's your point? I suppose you're hoping #8 backs up your comment but it doesn't.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
nobody is an angel whose judgement should be trusted. rights are rights because they cannot be compromised upon, only surrendered.
Click to expand...

The Nazi government gave itself the right to kill all Jews, gypsies and people it considered undesirable. That doesn't mean it was worthy. Rights are as good or bad as the people who proclaim them. And please don't respond with something like "rights are divine" or "God-given rights."
 
christiefan915 said:
The Nazi government gave itself the right to kill all Jews, gypsies and people it considered undesirable. That doesn't mean it was worthy.
Click to expand...
governments cannot 'give' themselves rights. they can only assume powers, rightly or wrongly. rights belong to the people alone.

christiefan915 said:
Rights are as good or bad as the people who proclaim them. And please don't respond with something like "rights are divine" or "God-given rights."
Click to expand...
we have basic and fundamental rights simply because we're human.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
there is nowhere in the entire constitution or debate papers about a social contract, so your premise is false.

two different topics, so irrelevant.

no, I didn't.
Click to expand...

Bad answer.

A) The Constitution IS a social contract.
B) We were discussing rights, and you were saying rights can't be compromised - so free speech IS the same topic, and relevant.
C) Yes, you did compromise.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
governments cannot 'give' themselves rights. they can only assume powers, rightly or wrongly. rights belong to the people alone.


we have basic and fundamental rights simply because we're human.
Click to expand...

I disagree with your first comment. "The people" don't have a right to exterminate a group they hate; they don't even have the right to determine whether a group they hate is worthy of punishment.

I agree with your 2nd comment but I don't see how it gives someone the right to have any kind of gun they want, unrestricted.
 
christiefan915 said:
The Nazi government gave itself the right to kill all Jews, gypsies and people it considered undesirable. That doesn't mean it was worthy. Rights are as good or bad as the people who proclaim them. And please don't respond with something like "rights are divine" or "God-given rights."
Click to expand...

No, the people gave it the power to kill Jews, first by giving it the power to persecute political rivals.
 
Thing1 said:
Bad answer.
Click to expand...
just because you don't like the truth does not make it a bad answer.

Thing1 said:
A) The Constitution IS a social contract.
Click to expand...
no it isn't. it's a legal document that forms the federal government. nothing else.
Thing1 said:
B) We were discussing rights, and you were saying rights can't be compromised - so free speech IS the same topic, and relevant.
Click to expand...
slander is not free speech. libel is not free speech. so it is not the same topic.
Thing1 said:
C) Yes, you did compromise.
Click to expand...
no matter how many times you say it, it will not be correct.
 
christiefan915 said:
I disagree with your first comment. "The people" don't have a right to exterminate a group they hate; they don't even have the right to determine whether a group they hate is worthy of punishment.
Click to expand...
which is why we have a constitutional republic, to protect the rights of the minority.

christiefan915 said:
I agree with your 2nd comment but I don't see how it gives someone the right to have any kind of gun they want, unrestricted.
Click to expand...
because as a human being, we have the right to self preservation using any and all tools necessary. considering the framers experience with an oppressive standing army, those tools would include any kind of gun they want, unrestricted. the only reason some of you want gun restrictions is because you trust the government more than the people. a view that the founders did not believe was valid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top