Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
F3SS

Confiscate, Confiscate, Confiscate

320 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Babe Ruth

I don't know what guns and militias have to do with freedom except if you want freedom to kill. They are instruments of death.

Don't forget self defense.

It was very much a theme discussed during the crafting of the 14th Amendment. Among other things, a purpose of that amendment was to allow the former slaves to protect themselves and their families and newfound property with firearms.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

It is really hard to believe how it can be that a foreigner like myself understands their law better than they do.

lol, but you don't understand. in fact you absolutely cluless to situaion at hand, and totaly alien to american concept of freedom. but you are funny in trying to convince us that you do. keep it up

Edited by aztek
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

I don't know what guns and militias have to do with freedom except if you want freedom to kill. They are instruments of death.

Man has always had the unalienable right to kill, just don’t need a gun to do so. We’ve seen that of late. But freedom to kill is not the reason for the 2nd. It’s for the freedom to stay alive and free.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

times have changed. the original meaning of tne second amendment is IMO lost, but maybe it's gotten a new meaning - one that represents the American ideal of freedom - or at least the American conxeption of freedom.

Yes, times have changed but the observations of human nature expressed in the Constitution have not. Government still tries to oppress the people. If oppression is not appealing then the people need to be even more vigilant. The 2nd is to defend our individual natural rights – that hasn’t changed. Now of late you hear politicians trying to change it by focusing on hunting or 7 rounds for home defense. But that’s a bastardized subset to favor government.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kowalski

Don't forget self defense.

It was very much a theme discussed during the crafting of the 14th Amendment. Among other things, a purpose of that amendment was to allow the former slaves to protect themselves and their families and newfound property with firearms.

I believe there were actually black militias formed to protect the newly freed slaves from violent retaliation (the KKK and such), actually. I thought that was interesting.

Yes, times have changed but the observations of human nature expressed in the Constitution have not. Government still tries to oppress the people. If oppression is not appealing then the people need to be even more vigilant. The 2nd is to defend our individual natural rights – that hasn't changed. Now of late you hear politicians trying to change it by focusing on hunting or 7 rounds for home defense. But that's a bastardized subset to favor government.

Your right. The second amendment is not about hunting it's about defense. Whether it be from the government, foreign invasion, or self defense.

Thought I'd share this with ya'll:

Unalienable Rights Defined

Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty areUNALIENABLE. Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition

"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

Taken from http://unalienable.com/unalien.htm

"Burlamaqui (Politic c. #, . 15) defines natural liberty as "the right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner they may judge most consonant to their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere with an equal exercise of the same rights by other men;" and therefore it has been justly said, that "absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security--the right of personal liberty--and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights have been justly considered and frequently declared by the people of this country to be natural, inherent, and unalienable." Potter's Dwarris, ch. 13, p. 429.

From these passages it is evident; that the right of acquiring and possessing property, and having it protected, is one of the natural, inherent, and unalienable rights of man. Men have a sense of property: Property is necessary to their subsistence, and correspondent to their natural wants and desires; its security was one of the objects, that induced them to unite in society. No man would become a member of a community, in which he could not enjoy the fruits of his honest labour and industry. . . The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. . . Where is the security, where the inviolability of property, if the legislature, by a private act, affecting particular persons ONLY, can take land from one citizen, who acquired it legally, and vest it in another? VANHORNE'S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

I don't see where it follows that a government that prohibits private use of guns except for farmers and hunters and maybe sport is necessarily oppressive. This is the case in Japan and most of Europe and they don't seem all that oppressive. All governments prohibit various things, based on public safety and health.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

I can understand the need for guns if one has slaves to keep oppressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

The "gun's are an inalienable right" types ignore history and law.

You have that backwards. "Gun's are an inalienable right" is the result of learning history and it follows natural law as Blackstone had defined it.

It is really hard to believe how it can be that a foreigner like myself understands their law better than they do.

No you don’t. You understand it like all foreigners understand it because people that live under oppression do not really understand freedom beyond what their government allows them to have. This is the attitude that Obama wishes for Americans. Our type of Freedom is not government friendly nor should it ever. Now please accept my apologies as I’m not trying to degrade your lifestyle, it is just a fact of life that this is the main difference between a Republic and Socialism (Oligarchy of any flavor). And it affects people’s mindset.

Of course the reality is they don't want to understand.

The reality is that if people really did understand then there would be more Republics than Socialist Democracies.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

Natural law is an Enlightenment philosophy of government popular with Jefferson, but never adopted by the United States. It is really nothing more than an effort to substitute the deist god for the Christian God in justifying the existence of government, and never did really work. That we see elements of it returning now in this discussion is, shall we say, funny. The main dogma of US government is no such thing but instead consent of the governed. Here I am a Communist explaing your own political philosophy to you. Really funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

I live in a one-party state, and I think it works, or at least can work, pretty well, so long as personality cults and tyrants are kept out. The advantage is that it functions generally with the people as first stakeholder. It doesn't have petty politics or bought elections or ballot stuffing or tax investigations of the political opposition. Indeed, with a party composed of the elite, being basically the college educated who meet some other standards, it is rather Platonic when you think about it.

Certainly I don't feel suppressed in any way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

I don't see where it follows that a government that prohibits private use of guns except for farmers and hunters and maybe sport is necessarily oppressive.

That’s why you don’t understand. To me this is unacceptably oppressive. I was born in freedom but unlike many, I understand that I can possibly lose that. That is an undesirable outcome. One of our Founding Fathers was an ancestor of mine and so I have a legacy to defend. My genes carry their passion. I wonder if I will ever live up to their standard if called upon to defend this freedom.

This is the case in Japan and most of Europe and they don't seem all that oppressive.

Precisely! The operative is “seem”. I think these places are great places to visit but I do not want to live there.

All governments prohibit various things, based on public safety and health.

That’s the excuse of all tyrants. “Those who sacrifice Liberty for Security deserve neither.” You have to understand that government cannot protect the people from each other. The people will do whatever they want to. The only thing that does protect the people from each other is Personal Responsibility. That is not the realm of government. The government can only react after the fact to punish the offender. The only thing government can do is apply ever increasingly oppressive punitive laws. That is not the role of government. That is a waste of time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

That's the excuse of all tyrants. "Those who sacrifice Liberty for Security deserve neither." You have to understand that government cannot protect the people from each other. The people will do whatever they want to. The only thing that does protect the people from each other is Personal Responsibility. That is not the realm of government. The government can only react after the fact to punish the offender. The only thing government can do is apply ever increasingly oppressive punitive laws. That is not the role of government. That is a waste of time.

If there were to be an outbreak of a deadly communicable disease, governments would restrict travel, isolate patients, quarantine all sorts of things, and even forbid things like funerals and public assemblies and ballgames and schools. Now that would seem tyrannical, but it would be necessary if the circumstances were dire enough. That is in effect what you have in the states with gun deaths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

lol grasping for straws was never so much fun to watch.

you forgot to mention roads, amd welfare

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

If there were to be an outbreak of a deadly communicable disease, governments would restrict travel, isolate patients, quarantine all sorts of things, and even forbid things like funerals and public assemblies and ballgames and schools. Now that would seem tyrannical, but it would be necessary if the circumstances were dire enough. That is in effect what you have in the states with gun deaths.

No, it wouldn’t seem tyrannical. This would be an appropriate action by the government. Gun deaths here are not dire. There are about 30,000 gun deaths (accidental, suicide, and homicide) per year. That’s something like less than 1/10th of 1/10th of a percent. There are more car accident deaths. There are more from drug abuse. More from cancer and heart attacks. More from non gun suicides and homicides. If someone gets a communicable disease, the government will only quarantine them for a time, not put them on an enemies list and imprison them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babe Ruth

I don't see where it follows that a government that prohibits private use of guns except for farmers and hunters and maybe sport is necessarily oppressive. This is the case in Japan and most of Europe and they don't seem all that oppressive. All governments prohibit various things, based on public safety and health.

It is oppressive in this case because it is against the law. Like it or not, the Second Amendment is a law restraining the government.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kowalski

That's why you don't understand. To me this is unacceptably oppressive. I was born in freedom but unlike many, I understand that I can possibly lose that. That is an undesirable outcome. One of our Founding Fathers was an ancestor of mine and so I have a legacy to defend. My genes carry their passion. I wonder if I will ever live up to their standard if called upon to defend this freedom.

Sorry to go off topic, but that is seriously cool! Can I be nosy and ask which one? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

I live in a one-party state,

That is a prime state for oppression of Oligarchy.

and I think it works, or at least can work,

Socialism or Oligarchies have always been efficient because it controls the means of production by curtailing the rights of the people. But it never lasts because the people are oppressed. People will always yearn to be free.

pretty well, so long as personality cults and tyrants are kept out.

That will be difficult to do as the right person (tyrant) will always find their way into control. We’re seeing that here. From your own history of the Communists fighting the corruption of the old leadership, in turn your one party system is ripe for corruption and oppression.

The advantage is that it functions generally with the people as first stakeholder. It doesn't have petty politics or bought elections or ballot stuffing or tax investigations of the political opposition. Indeed, with a party composed of the elite, being basically the college educated who meet some other standards, it is rather Platonic when you think about it.

And again, prime for corruption. It will only be a matter of time. It’s the elite that will decide that they could do better if they had more control. It is only a matter of time. As long as there are humans ruling, there will be petty politics and bought elections. It is a matter of time.

Certainly I don't feel suppressed in any way.

Does a canary in a gilded cage feel suppressed?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

Sorry to go off topic, but that is seriously cool! Can I be nosy and ask which one? :)

Not at all :) The one I am descended from (actually from his grandfather) is “Mad” Anthony Wayne. I guess he would be categorized as a *minor* Founding Father in that he didn’t sign the Declaration or the Constitution, but he did serve in the PA legislature. His talent was best served in the field being one of Washington’s more reliable generals. He created the military we have today. He chased off the last remnants of British control (in Georgia and Ohio) which allowed Lewis and Clark to begin their exploration and our expansion. Some will say that Wayne was the Patton of his day, but in reality, wouldn’t that be the other way around? He probably didn’t have the notoriety like Morgan or Greene because he was subordinate to the likes of St Clair, Gates, and Arnold and had to either respond to or deal with their disappointments. He would always lead his men into battle and that’s where he got his nickname of “Mad”.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ninjadude

They are GOD given rights that can never be taken away by the government.

gee I don't see that in the constitution either.

The Founding Fathers assumed that the limitation of government had nothing to do with infringing on absolute rights.

and yet they didn't feel it important enough to enshrine into law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ninjadude

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

It's clear you don't understand inalienable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

gee I don't see that in the constitution either.

And you personally never will.

and yet they didn't feel it important enough to enshrine into law.

You are truly blind. You should have read the next sentence “In hindsight, the wisdom of the Founding Fathers thought better and added an enumeration of the more important rights that government cannot infringe upon, hence, the Bill of Rights; the two most important ones being listed first.

You will never understand. That has become clear. The Constitution is not a *Law Book*. It is a limitation of government, therefore Absolute Rights are assumed. Some Founding Fathers didn’t think that just *assuming* was good enough and wanted to have those rights spelled out because of people like you. Natural Law *IS* enshrined in the Constitution by the simple virtue of it existing.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ninjadude

The Constitution is not a *Law Book*. It is a limitation of government, therefore Absolute Rights are assumed. Some Founding Fathers didn't think that just *assuming* was good enough and wanted to have those rights spelled out because of people like you. Natural Law *IS* enshrined in the Constitution by the simple virtue of it existing.

Actually it is. The basis of all law in the US. There is nothing "assumed". That's right wing delusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle Sam

Actually it is. The basis of all law in the US. There is nothing "assumed". That's right wing delusions.

You and Frank seriously need to stop with the name calling as well as the baiting tactics you guys are using. It is unnecessary and will end up with this forums being locked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kowalski

Not at all :) The one I am descended from (actually from his grandfather) is "Mad" Anthony Wayne. I guess he would be categorized as a *minor* Founding Father in that he didn't sign the Declaration or the Constitution, but he did serve in the PA legislature. His talent was best served in the field being one of Washington's more reliable generals. He created the military we have today. He chased off the last remnants of British control (in Georgia and Ohio) which allowed Lewis and Clark to begin their exploration and our expansion. Some will say that Wayne was the Patton of his day, but in reality, wouldn't that be the other way around? He probably didn't have the notoriety like Morgan or Greene because he was subordinate to the likes of St Clair, Gates, and Arnold and had to either respond to or deal with their disappointments. He would always lead his men into battle and that's where he got his nickname of "Mad".

That's really neat! There is a legend around him, (You probably already know this) that I always thought was neat:

His body was disinterred in 1809 and, after the body was boiled to remove the remaining flesh, as many of the bones as would fit in two saddlebags were relocated by his son Isaac Wayne to the family plot in St. David's Episcopal Church cemetery in Radnor, Pennsylvania.[5] A legend says that many bones were lost along the roadway that encompasses much of modern U.S. Route 322, and that every January 1 (Wayne's birthday), his ghost wanders the highway searching for his lost bones.[6]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle Sam

Not at all :) The one I am descended from (actually from his grandfather) is "Mad" Anthony Wayne. I guess he would be categorized as a *minor* Founding Father in that he didn't sign the Declaration or the Constitution, but he did serve in the PA legislature. His talent was best served in the field being one of Washington's more reliable generals. He created the military we have today. He chased off the last remnants of British control (in Georgia and Ohio) which allowed Lewis and Clark to begin their exploration and our expansion. Some will say that Wayne was the Patton of his day, but in reality, wouldn't that be the other way around? He probably didn't have the notoriety like Morgan or Greene because he was subordinate to the likes of St Clair, Gates, and Arnold and had to either respond to or deal with their disappointments. He would always lead his men into battle and that's where he got his nickname of "Mad".

My family name happens to be Morgan.... hmm, maybe I am related to Morgan.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.