Previous 31 - 40 Next
How in the world can it be "not practical" to repeal a law so bad that it is a clear and present danger to every household in America? Who votes for a fool like that?
In response to:

You Don't Own You

Steven668 Wrote: Jun 19, 2014 2:19 AM
Property ownership is a fundamental right. If that right does not exist, then I can not claim the right to use anything as I see fit, to satisfy my own needs or desires. If I can not use "my" property for my own purposes, what is the point of working to acquire property? If I do have that right, I can possess and control property without the aid, consent, or participation of any other human being. This last is the hallmark of a legal right. Freedom from want is not a right by any sane definition. It implies that others are obligated to use the fruits of their labors to provide for my wants and needs, without compensation. It does not imply a reciprocal obligation on my part to make labor and property available to others to provide for their needs and wants. Such a one-sided obligation is illegal in contract law, and offensive to anyone who works for a living. It implies that property rights do not exist, and that productive people are obligated by virtue of their own efforts to turn their products over to those who do not produce. Law is necessarily limited to the relationship between government and individual. Good law deals only with well defined, black-and-white issues. Any law that attempts to address fine nuances or poorly defined issues is bad law because it leaves too much room for interpretation. Bad laws encourage rule by personal whim rather than universal standards. Religion is separate from law. It can guide the law in judgements of good and evil, but fundamentally, religion deals with the relationship between God and individual. While religion supports absolutes of good and evil, it is also well suited to subtly nuanced judgements of better or worse. While good law deals with the government's responsibility toward the individual, good religion deals with the individual's obligations to God. Law can assume that each individual has obligations to God, but it can not enforce them. Only a tyrant would suggest otherwise.
You have the right to travel. You may have the privilege of launching a guided missile along a heavily populated highway. Your car may not have an explosive warhead, but it is an incredibly dangerous blunt instrument moving at horrifying speeds among your fellow citizens. You simply can not operate a motor vehicle in any useful way without endangering everyone in your immediate vicinity. By contrast, you can carry as many guns as you can lift, and as long as you don't open fire with one, you do not affect ANYONE around you. That is why comparing guns to automobiles is ridiculous.
I can carry a rifle, a shotgun, three pistols and several knives without affecting anyone around me in any real way. Other people's emotional instability is not my responsibility. Wandering around with such hardware may limit my ability to carry anything else, but it does not require that anyone else do anything to accommodate me. Carrying weapons is therefore a legitimate right. I can not drive a motor vehicle outside of my back yard without significantly affecting several other people. Other motorists must adjust their behavior to accommodate my presence. Pedestrians must adjust their behavior to accommodate my presence. I must adjust my own behavior to accommodate the presence, and safety, of everyone around me. It is not therefore possible to consider driving to be a right under any circumstances.
In response to:

The Essence of Liberalism

Steven668 Wrote: Jun 15, 2014 1:54 AM
I am convinced that man is, in fact, basically good. The caveat is that each man, and the society from which he arises, defines "good" in a different way. One man's good becomes another man's evil, and sometimes there is no common ground where negotiation can occur. Liberals believe that man is basically evil. My proof is their insistence that every aspect of human life should be rigidly controlled by a government - their government. The fundamental essence of liberalism, however, is arrogance. The liberal is blessed with the unshakeable faith that he is superior in every way to his lesser brothers. He believes people like the Taliban will negotiate not because they are basically good, but because they feel compelled to seek the approval of the obviously superior liberal.
Most people who say "Marriage is a right" really mean, "If I want to hook up with someone and call it marriage, you are legally required to help me do it the way I want to do it." They also tend to define marriage as "any two or more people engaging in sex over an extended period of time." I can agree that every person has a right to participate in the religious sacrament called "marriage," but no one else has any obligation to participate IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER. One cannot confuse one's real right to marriage with a fictitious obligation for anyone else to care, or participate. Similarly, while everyone has the right to be married, some do not want to be married. They want something else, but they want to call it "married" for financial purposes, and they insist that clergy and other vendors be forced to provide wedding services on demand and under penalty of law. If a clergyman, baker, photographer, or caterer can be forced to provide wedding services under penalty of law, what is foolish about expecting the proposed wife or husband to be forced to participate under similar penalty?
Try this experiment: Strap a pistol to your hip and take a walk through a local park or along a busy street. Smile at everyone you meet, and do nothing that could be considered threatening or aggressive. If you get back home without being stopped and questioned by the police, you are not part of an underclass. If you are arrested or your weapon is confiscated, then your life is not considered worthy of the protection a firearm can provide, and you ARE part of an underclass. If you can retain your weapon by showing a permit, then you are part of the overclass (elite) that the government considers worthy of protection. These classes have nothing to do with wealth. Just whether the government extends the privilege of self defense, or withholds it.
You were GRANTED A PRIVELEGE that is normally denied the average citizen. That makes you special, and the government gave you a certificate that affirms that you are special. Of course they consider you to be part of an elite class. You get to shoot back. The rest of us have to just take the bullet, if we can't find cover quickly enough. What do you want, a parade?
What you own is irrelevant. Suitable penalties in proportion to the effects of weapons you actually discharge are appropriate. Liability for collateral damage caused in self defense might be appropriate, making area effect weapons unpopular, but not illegal to possess. And, yes, nuclear weapons, too. But have you any idea how much it would cost to purchase, store and maintain a nuclear weapon that you could never reasonably use? And, of course, failure to store it properly would carry a penalty because the radiation would cause measurable harm to one's neighbors by its mere presence. Even training cannot be made mandatory because the training specified will necessarily be limited. Good training can be rendered highly advisable due to possibly ruinous legal liabilities, including possible criminal action, resulting from improper use (or even storage in the case of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.)
Yes, but it is a weak and ineffectual argument, and the author knows it. I wish you luck in the exercise of your allegedly inalienable right as a human being and a United States citizen in Washington, DC, for example. In that fair city, you are property to be disposed of as your masters, or random chance, dictate.
Nope. Owning a firearm makes you someone who has title to a piece of metal. Carrying a firearm in public makes you a sovereign citizen of a special place called "The United States of America." Being subject to arrest and confiscation of your property because you have that property on your person while in a public place makes you chattel. Having special dispensation from your government to carry a type of property in public that most other persons are forbidden to carry (a CCW permit, for example) makes you part of a government sponsored elite. How can I make this any more clear?
Previous 31 - 40 Next