More Muslim Violence

Anything and Everything political, express your view, but play nice
Coydog
Guru Poster
Posts: 5926
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 12:23

Re: More Muslim Violence

Post by Coydog »

Mister Moose wrote:
XtremeJibber2001 wrote:
What about the 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries and 33,636 deaths due to injury by firearms in the US. When do we act?
Freedom has a price. There will always be people that abuse freedom. That doesn't make the value of freedom any less.

We are citizens, not subjects. Citizens have autonomy, and are only limited by the law, not enabled by the law.
Yes. Even though I'm severely against military style weapons, I still support the 2nd Amendment because it places a limitation on our government or rather it doesn't grant a right to the government to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. Though a literal reading reveals it is silent about regulating the use of those arms. I suppose one could always go to the intent of the framers ...
XtremeJibber2001
Signature Poster
Posts: 19565
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:35
Location: New York

Re: More Muslim Violence

Post by XtremeJibber2001 »

Mister Moose wrote:
XtremeJibber2001 wrote:
What about the 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries and 33,636 deaths due to injury by firearms in the US. When do we act?
Freedom has a price. There will always be people that abuse freedom. That doesn't make the value of freedom any less.

We are citizens, not subjects. Citizens have autonomy, and are only limited by the law, not enabled by the law.
Just seems at odds with logic the amount, we as taxpayers, spend to defend against terrorism as compared to combating gun violence ... something which impacts our country far greater. Saying this as a gun owner.
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: More Muslim Violence

Post by madhatter »

Coydog wrote:
Mister Moose wrote:
XtremeJibber2001 wrote:
What about the 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries and 33,636 deaths due to injury by firearms in the US. When do we act?
Freedom has a price. There will always be people that abuse freedom. That doesn't make the value of freedom any less.

We are citizens, not subjects. Citizens have autonomy, and are only limited by the law, not enabled by the law.
Yes. Even though I'm severely against military style weapons, I still support the 2nd Amendment because it places a limitation on our government or rather it doesn't grant a right to the government to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. Though a literal reading reveals it is silent about regulating the use of those arms. I suppose one could always go to the intent of the framers ...
or you don't understand what it means to "bear arms"
boreplay \ˈbȯr\; borne also bornplay \ˈbȯrn\; bearing
transitive verb
1
a : to move while holding up and supporting (something)
b : to be equipped or furnished with (something)
c : behave, conduct bearing himself well
d : to have as a feature or characteristic bears a likeness to her grandmother
e : to give as testimony bear false witness
f : to have as an identification bore the name of John
g : to hold in the mind or emotions bear malice
h : disseminate
i : lead, escort
j : render, give
2
a : to give birth to
b : to produce as yield
c (1) : to permit growth of (2) : contain oil-bearing shale
3
a : to support the weight of : sustain
b : to accept or allow oneself to be subjected to especially without giving way couldn't bear the pain I can't bear seeing you cry
c : to call for as suitable or essential it bears watching
d : to hold above, on top, or aloft
e : to admit of : allow
f : assume, accept
4
: thrust, press
intransitive verb
1
: to produce fruit : yield
2
a : to force one's way
b : to extend in a direction indicated or implied
c : to be situated : lie
d : to become directed
e : to go or incline in an indicated direction
3
: to support a weight or strain —often used with up
4
a : to exert influence or force
b : apply, pertain —often used with on or upon facts bearing on the question
bear a hand
: to join in and help out
bear arms
1
: to carry or possess arms
2
: to serve as a soldier
now I suppose one could feign ignorance and suppose that it meant they were able to show or brandish arms, not use them...but otherwise it's quite clear that those arms were meant to be kept and used if necessary, and that right shall not be infringed...of course to some people rights are as optional as stopping at a stop sign...but that doesn't change what that right, or that stop sign mean...legalese is always as specific as possible, though some attempt to inject as much feigned ambiguity into it as possible in their attempt at imposing their will...

again that ls the problem I have with "liberalism" which is really just hedonistic self indulgence with regards only for ones self interest at the expense of others...

and just like I take issue with one regarding a stop sign as "optional" despite any legal description as such, I also take issue with your "liberal" view of the constitution and the rights set forth in it...the terms are very clear but when one can interpret a stop sign as optional, there's really no limit as to what one can interpret anything to mean...the exact reason why lawmakers go to such great lengths to make laws as specific as possible...unfortunately we still have activist justices who interpret the law in order to create an outcome that is desirable to them no matter how contrary to the written law...see the 9th circuit of imbeciles for clarification on this...

meanwhile everywhere in america the stop sign still means STOP with absolutely no exceptions in any case...not stop if you feel like it, or stop if it's convenient, or stop if you don't have anything better to do...to say otherwise is to say you simply do not care what the law says or who it's intended to protect...and I take great exception to the fact that you imagine your "needs" take precedent over everyone else's right to safe passage, cuz regardless of what you think your excuse is if you kill or injure someone while disregarding the law, you're at fault...

FYI the ambulance has a trained EMT that can administer care immediately upon arrival and while in transport...so the "no time for an ambulance" argument is garbage also...it also has little flashing lights and a siren on it that actually invoke a "legal option to ignore traffic law at their discretion" you however do not have that legal option...

and while my stop sign argument was a theoretical one, it serves well to illustrate the leeway a "liberal" is willing to grant to himself or his favored position no matter what the consequences to the other parties involved may be...be glad to see fewer ( really none) of them in the courts....
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
User avatar
Mister Moose
Level 10K poster
Posts: 11596
Joined: Jan 4th, '05, 18:23
Location: Waiting for the next one

Re: More Muslim Violence

Post by Mister Moose »

Coydog wrote:
Mister Moose wrote:
XtremeJibber2001 wrote:
What about the 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries and 33,636 deaths due to injury by firearms in the US. When do we act?
Freedom has a price. There will always be people that abuse freedom. That doesn't make the value of freedom any less.

We are citizens, not subjects. Citizens have autonomy, and are only limited by the law, not enabled by the law.
Yes. Even though I'm severely against military style weapons, I still support the 2nd Amendment because it places a limitation on our government or rather it doesn't grant a right to the government to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. Though a literal reading reveals it is silent about regulating the use of those arms. I suppose one could always go to the intent of the framers ...
How about where the constitution says where it's legal for you to ski? Does it say that? Perhaps it's in the federal code, or VT State law? Must be a town regulation.

You missed the part where we are only limited by the law, not enabled by the law.
Image
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: More Muslim Violence

Post by madhatter »

Mister Moose wrote:
Coydog wrote:
Mister Moose wrote:
XtremeJibber2001 wrote:
What about the 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries and 33,636 deaths due to injury by firearms in the US. When do we act?
Freedom has a price. There will always be people that abuse freedom. That doesn't make the value of freedom any less.

We are citizens, not subjects. Citizens have autonomy, and are only limited by the law, not enabled by the law.
Yes. Even though I'm severely against military style weapons, I still support the 2nd Amendment because it places a limitation on our government or rather it doesn't grant a right to the government to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. Though a literal reading reveals it is silent about regulating the use of those arms. I suppose one could always go to the intent of the framers ...
How about where the constitution says where it's legal for you to ski? Does it say that? Perhaps it's in the federal code, or VT State law? Must be a town regulation.

You missed the part where we are only limited by the law, not enabled by the law.
actually he totally gets it but only applies it selectively when it suits his needs and discards it when it doesn't...and again THAT is the problem with liberalism as it pertains to law...it's a degree of anarchy and chaos that can only descend further and further until it collapses the system and some form of totalitarian, authoritarian or other militant state takes it's place...

the concentration of power at the federal level and the ability to legislate from the bench both serve as accelerants to this inevitable end...wonder who would benefit from that?

certainly no one posting here...
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
Coydog
Guru Poster
Posts: 5926
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 12:23

Re: More Muslim Violence

Post by Coydog »

Mister Moose wrote:
Coydog wrote:
Mister Moose wrote:
XtremeJibber2001 wrote:
What about the 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries and 33,636 deaths due to injury by firearms in the US. When do we act?
Freedom has a price. There will always be people that abuse freedom. That doesn't make the value of freedom any less.

We are citizens, not subjects. Citizens have autonomy, and are only limited by the law, not enabled by the law.
Yes. Even though I'm severely against military style weapons, I still support the 2nd Amendment because it places a limitation on our government or rather it doesn't grant a right to the government to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. Though a literal reading reveals it is silent about regulating the use of those arms. I suppose one could always go to the intent of the framers ...
How about where the constitution says where it's legal for you to ski? Does it say that? Perhaps it's in the federal code, or VT State law? Must be a town regulation.

You missed the part where we are only limited by the law, not enabled by the law.
You missed the 10th Amendment. If you were to rely on a literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, the 10th Amendment would then allow States to implement laws to regulate or even prohibit the use of arms and this would be constitutional. Don't like it, move to a different state.

If states want to restrict your right to ski, they can do that too. That's the limited by law part.
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: More Muslim Violence

Post by madhatter »

Coydog wrote:
Mister Moose wrote:
Coydog wrote:
Mister Moose wrote:
XtremeJibber2001 wrote:
What about the 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries and 33,636 deaths due to injury by firearms in the US. When do we act?
Freedom has a price. There will always be people that abuse freedom. That doesn't make the value of freedom any less.

We are citizens, not subjects. Citizens have autonomy, and are only limited by the law, not enabled by the law.
Yes. Even though I'm severely against military style weapons, I still support the 2nd Amendment because it places a limitation on our government or rather it doesn't grant a right to the government to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. Though a literal reading reveals it is silent about regulating the use of those arms. I suppose one could always go to the intent of the framers ...
How about where the constitution says where it's legal for you to ski? Does it say that? Perhaps it's in the federal code, or VT State law? Must be a town regulation.

You missed the part where we are only limited by the law, not enabled by the law.
You missed the 10th Amendment. If you were to rely on a literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, the 10th Amendment would then allow States to implement laws to regulate the use of arms and this would be constitutional. Don't like it, move to a different state.

If states want to restrict your right to ski, they can do that too. That's the limited by law part.
except in the case of the 2nd where it says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED...any attempt to regulate is an infringement...and before you go blithering that's already been done, it doesn't mean I agree with it or that I'm for future regulations merely by accepting current regulations as law despite my disagreement with them...much like many disagree w roe v wade or the citizens united decision...

now shoudl we treat those laws like you do the stop sign and ignore them when you deem a personal priority is take precedent? e.g. I want a bazooka and even though the law says I can;t have one, I think my safety and the safety of my loved ones is more important ( as valuable to me as those loved ones in your stop sign running car on the way to the hospital) or are your loved ones somehow more valuable than mine? see the problem again with "liberal" interpretation of the law? it only works when you have someone in your corner willing to make those interpretations in your favor...if we ALL get to make whatever interpretation w want w have anarchy, and if we put only those with whom we agree in charge of making those interpretations w have totalitarianism or authoritarianism...only when we seek to make the law as clear and concise as possible with no room for abstract interpretation do we achieve anything resembling justice for all...
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
User avatar
Mister Moose
Level 10K poster
Posts: 11596
Joined: Jan 4th, '05, 18:23
Location: Waiting for the next one

Re: More Muslim Violence

Post by Mister Moose »

Coydog wrote:
Mister Moose wrote:
Coydog wrote:
Mister Moose wrote:
XtremeJibber2001 wrote:
What about the 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries and 33,636 deaths due to injury by firearms in the US. When do we act?
Freedom has a price. There will always be people that abuse freedom. That doesn't make the value of freedom any less.

We are citizens, not subjects. Citizens have autonomy, and are only limited by the law, not enabled by the law.
Yes. Even though I'm severely against military style weapons, I still support the 2nd Amendment because it places a limitation on our government or rather it doesn't grant a right to the government to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. Though a literal reading reveals it is silent about regulating the use of those arms. I suppose one could always go to the intent of the framers ...
How about where the constitution says where it's legal for you to ski? Does it say that? Perhaps it's in the federal code, or VT State law? Must be a town regulation.

You missed the part where we are only limited by the law, not enabled by the law.
You missed the 10th Amendment. If you were to rely on a literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, the 10th Amendment would then allow States to implement laws to regulate or even prohibit the use of arms and this would be constitutional. Don't like it, move to a different state.

If states want to restrict your right to ski, they can do that too. That's the limited by law part.
You're tangenting. I didn't miss the 10th amendment. I said citizens are limited by the law, not enabled by the law. You're off discussing States vs Federal, either of which can limit.
Image
Coydog
Guru Poster
Posts: 5926
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 12:23

Re: More Muslim Violence

Post by Coydog »

madhatter wrote:
bear arms
1
: to carry or possess arms
2
: to serve as a soldier
now I suppose one could feign ignorance and suppose that it meant they were able to show or brandish arms, not use them...wait, wait, the 2nd Amendment doesn't say "USE ARMS" it says "BEAR ARMS" and "BEAR ARMS" means to "carry or possess arms" or "serve as a soldier" but otherwise it's quite clear that those arms were meant to be kept and used if necessary, and that right shall not be infringed...
So now, when it suits you, you are prepared to go beyond the literal words and interpret the intent of language to arrive at your desired outcome.
Coydog
Guru Poster
Posts: 5926
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 12:23

Re: More Muslim Violence

Post by Coydog »

madhatter wrote:except in the case of the 2nd where it says the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED ...any attempt to regulate is an infringement...that's you're interpretation, it literally doesn't speak to use and before you go blithering that's already been done, it doesn't mean I agree with it or that I'm for future regulations merely by accepting current regulations as law despite my disagreement with them...much like many disagree w roe v wade or the citizens united decision...

now shoudl we treat those laws like you do the stop sign and ignore them when you deem a personal priority is take precedent? e.g. I want a bazooka and even though the law says I can;t have one, I think my safety and the safety of my loved ones is more important ( as valuable to me as those loved ones in your stop sign running car on the way to the hospital) or are your loved ones somehow more valuable than mine? see the problem again with "liberal" interpretation of the law? it only works when you have someone in your corner willing to make those interpretations in your favor...if we ALL get to make whatever interpretation w want w have anarchy, and if we put only those with whom we agree in charge of making those interpretations w have totalitarianism or authoritarianism...only when we seek to make the law as clear and concise as possible with no room for abstract interpretation such as "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" really means "the right to keep and bear and use arms shall not be infringed" do we achieve anything resembling justice for all...
We ALWAYS make whatever interpretation of the law we wish. Doesn't mean the courts will agree and it doesn't mean there will be no consequences. Further, I choose which laws I will abide and when, you do not choose that for me. Again, there can be consequences, perhaps grave consequences, but the choice is mine to make. And like many others, I will practice civil disobedience for those laws that I believe have gone too far for too long. Kinda like the original Tea Party thing back in the framers' day.
.
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: More Muslim Violence

Post by madhatter »

Coydog wrote:
madhatter wrote:
bear arms
1
: to carry or possess arms
2
: to serve as a soldier
now I suppose one could feign ignorance and suppose that it meant they were able to show or brandish arms, not use them...wait, wait, the 2nd Amendment doesn't say "USE ARMS" it says "BEAR ARMS" and "BEAR ARMS" means to "carry or possess arms" or "serve as a soldier" but otherwise it's quite clear that those arms were meant to be kept and used if necessary, and that right shall not be infringed...
So now, when it suits you, you are prepared to go beyond the literal words and interpret the intent of language to arrive at your desired outcome.
whatever, play yer word games, it's extremely annoying....when someone bears arms it's in a show of defense or or strength and signifies the intent of use, much like when one bears gift one doesn't simply hold them aloft for all to see one delivers them...a police officer ( or person) with a gun in his holster is not "bearing arms... a police officer ( or person) with a gun drawn is bearing arms...now I suppose you could argue that's where his right ends ( at the drawing, but prior to firing) but good luck w that...

your seeking to narrowly define the word bear...when one bears something one "puts forth" to bear a child doesn't meant to get pregnant it means to actually give birth to that child...

placing restrictions on bearing an arm ( you can't shoot it, you can't shoot it in rapid fire, can't use it at all etc) are also infringing...but thanks for the ridiculous analogy...

STOP however still means STOP...not slow down, coast thru, ignore if you feel like it or any other thing, just stop...if you want changes to that change the law not the interpretation...I'm ok w that... change the second amendment thru constitutional amendment and I'm good w whatever it says...until then it says shall not be infringed...

all of this still ignores the fact that our rights are protected by the constitution not enumerated by it...I guess you can try to make a law somewhere that adds the you may not fire restriction but until then there isn't one...so don;t go accusing me of selectively going beyond "the literal words and interpret the intent of language to arrive at your desired outcome."

I'm agreeing with the words that are currently written and accept them as they are written...if you want to argue that bear means only to carry but not use you'll need to take that up w congress...otherwise it's meaning has been pretty well established...
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
Coydog
Guru Poster
Posts: 5926
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 12:23

Re: More Muslim Violence

Post by Coydog »

Mister Moose wrote: You're tangenting. I didn't miss the 10th amendment. I said citizens are limited by the law, not enabled by the law. You're off discussing States vs Federal, either of which can limit.
Then I don't understand your point, if any. I thought you were saying under the Constitution, the government doesn't grant us rights, we already have them. We grant specific and limited rights to the government. We can agree to limit our rights through the legislative process as long as those restrictions do not breach the limits imposed on government by the Constitution.

On this we would agree, but perhaps that's too liberal an interpretation.
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: More Muslim Violence

Post by madhatter »

Coydog wrote:
madhatter wrote:except in the case of the 2nd where it says the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED ...any attempt to regulate is an infringement...that's you're interpretation, it literally doesn't speak to use and before you go blithering that's already been done, it doesn't mean I agree with it or that I'm for future regulations merely by accepting current regulations as law despite my disagreement with them...much like many disagree w roe v wade or the citizens united decision...

now shoudl we treat those laws like you do the stop sign and ignore them when you deem a personal priority is take precedent? e.g. I want a bazooka and even though the law says I can;t have one, I think my safety and the safety of my loved ones is more important ( as valuable to me as those loved ones in your stop sign running car on the way to the hospital) or are your loved ones somehow more valuable than mine? see the problem again with "liberal" interpretation of the law? it only works when you have someone in your corner willing to make those interpretations in your favor...if we ALL get to make whatever interpretation w want w have anarchy, and if we put only those with whom we agree in charge of making those interpretations w have totalitarianism or authoritarianism...only when we seek to make the law as clear and concise as possible with no room for abstract interpretation such as "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" really means "the right to keep and bear and use arms shall not be infringed" do we achieve anything resembling justice for all...
We ALWAYS make whatever interpretation of the law we wish. Doesn't mean the courts will agree and it doesn't mean there will be no consequences. Further, I choose which laws I will abide and when, you do not choose that for me. Again, there can be consequences, perhaps grave consequences, but the choice is mine to make. And like many others, I will practice civil disobedience for those laws that I believe have gone too far for too long. Kinda like the original Tea Party thing back in the framers' day.
.
I agree with that, I just believe that both the law and the penalty or consequences should be pre-defined and that you should know with no uncertainty what the law requires and what the repercussions for failure to abide are beforehand...I don't want it left up to arbitrary interpretation ex post facto...

I choose which laws I will abide and when, you do not choose that for me.
the rule of law depends upon your choosing to abide, not on your ability to not get caught or willingness to accept the consequences of being caught...no one is a saint of course but the further one varies from the written law the less safe we all are as the rule of law, not the enforcement of law, is what separates the US and other first world countries from the rest...
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
Coydog
Guru Poster
Posts: 5926
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 12:23

Re: More Muslim Violence

Post by Coydog »

madhatter wrote:whatever, play yer word games, it's extremely annoying....when someone bears arms it's in a show of defense or or strength and signifies the intent of use, much like when one bears gift one doesn't simply hold them aloft for all to see one delivers them...a police officer ( or person) with a gun in his holster is not "bearing arms... a police officer ( or person) with a gun drawn is bearing arms...now I suppose you could argue that's where his right ends ( at the drawing, but prior to firing) but good luck w that...
Geez, talk about word games. Now to "bear arms" does not mean to "possess or carry" as stated by the dictionary, rather it means to "show intent to use" or "draw arms". Just more interpretations that go beyond the literal language.
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: More Muslim Violence

Post by madhatter »

Coydog wrote:
madhatter wrote:whatever, play yer word games, it's extremely annoying....when someone bears arms it's in a show of defense or or strength and signifies the intent of use, much like when one bears gift one doesn't simply hold them aloft for all to see one delivers them...a police officer ( or person) with a gun in his holster is not "bearing arms... a police officer ( or person) with a gun drawn is bearing arms...now I suppose you could argue that's where his right ends ( at the drawing, but prior to firing) but good luck w that...
Geez, talk about word games. Now to "bear arms" does not mean to "possess or carry" as stated by the dictionary, rather it means to "show intent to use" or "draw arms". Just more interpretations that go beyond the literal language.
guess ya need to read up more on what the word bear means...and what it means in a sentence...and what it means in context of the second amendment...as i said change the second amendment stop trying to re-interpret it or any law you might disagree with..change it...via legal procedure...you'd be a hero to lefties everywhere if you could establish that bear means only to possess or carry while ignoring " be a soldier"...


Definition of soldier
1
a : one engaged in military service and especially in the army
b : an enlisted man or woman
c : a skilled warrior
2
: a militant leader, follower, or worker
3
a : one of a caste of wingless sterile termites usually differing from workers in larger size and head and long jaws
b : one of a type of worker ants distinguished by exceptionally large head and jaws
4
\ˈsō-jər, ˈsōl-\ : one who shirks work

again a ridiculous argument that you know is ridiculous but you somehow imagine makes a point... because of its absurdity?...

maybe we have the right to keep the fore appendages of Ursidae and to shirk work with them???

soldier:

4
\ˈsō-jər, ˈsōl-\ : one who shirks work

bear

Bears are carnivoran mammals of the family Ursidae. Bears are classified as caniforms, or doglike carnivorans. Wikipedia

anyway I gotta start getting ready for my race, I'll see you at happy hour...
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
Post Reply