C. People with guns. You keep creating false dichotomies. The world should not simply be divided into people who work in government and those who don't. Why should a democratic government be compared to a dictatorship in this context? You are taking a complex issue and trying to simplify it so much that it no longer resembles the reality.Originally Posted by Sinfix_15
The constitution acknowledges and protects the rights that i have. It did not and does not give me rights. The government is a representation of a free civilization. They are essentially an employee. Black people were always free.... the american government didnt give black people their freedom, they just acknowledged the freedom they already had a lot slower than they should have. Something that might have been expedited if every black person was armed and capable of defending themselves.
Slavery is a good example of what a government is capable of when they have too much power and no threat of resistance from it's people.
What part of disarming citizens gives a strategical advantage over foreign invasion?
Given the options i gave you.... answer the question.
Its a clear question with precise intent. I specified INNOCENT people.
Who has killed more INNOCENT people who were NOT in combat... NOT part of any army and NOT fighting back.......
A: Civilians with guns..... civilians including every criminal who has ever walked the face of this planet.
B: Governments with guns.
You say i shouldnt lump dictatorships in with democratic governments, what prevents a democracy from becoming a dictatorship?
Checks and balances
You asked. That's the answer.
You're playing word games now. Having "a right to be free" didn't stop them from being enslaved. Having a "right" is meaningless unless it's enforced in reality. If you don't think our constitution is important for enforcing your rights, then who cares what is in it at all?
The government didn't create slavery and it only ended it with the support of the people.
I never said anything about disarming citizens having anything to do with foreign invasion. We don't rely on our average citizens to fight foreign invaders. That's what the standing army is for. You are taking two separate issues (disarmament and soldier training programs) and making them one issue now. I still don't see what one has to do with the other.
For someone who holds the second amendment so dear, you sure don't seem to think much of the rest of the constitution.
"Ordinary Americans don't care about their constitutional rights" -Biden
Sinfix is just an ordinary american.
What? What school did you take history classes at?
Citizens will never ever have a strategic advantage over the military. Not ever in the United States anyway. No modification to the 2nd amendment will change that. Ever.What part of disarming citizens gives a strategical advantage over foreign invasion?
By what means is the constitution enforced? literally.... what do we use to enforce any law, any where?
I made a link between their actions. That link was that theyre all "strategical advantages" in a theoretical "military vs civilian" conflict. It wasnt a part of my core argument, it was simply a "this looks fishy" comment.
The united states is the only place where citizens do have an advantage over the military, because our military upholds the value of it's people. Unlike Syria where if the leader said "drop a bomb on that hospital" and it would get done, if a politician gave a marine that same order he would probably turn and fire on the politician. You're looking at it like it's a football game and one team vs the other..... the military would divide in this type of conflict.
The things that make america, america... are the things Obama seems to disagree with.
i fail to see how you come to this conclusion.
The constitution is enforced by the courts.
Every bit of training and new technology the military does would give a "strategical advantage" in such a theoretical conflict. "This looks fishy" is a long way from a convincing argument that we are in any sort of danger of being enslaved by our government. There are enough issues to argue about already, can we just keep such wild speculation out of it.
You scoffed at the idea that the checks and balances in the constitution are what keeps us from becoming a dictatorship. Since they are a major part of the constitution and you feel they are of minimal value, that led me to believe you don't hold much of the constitution in high regard. Feel free to correct which part I have wrong.
I understand the purpose by design, that doesnt mean it's flawless. Obamacare happened.... patriot act happened.... domestic drones happened....
I agree there are some questionable interpretations of constitutional powers out there, but overall the document still is the basis for the rules of our society. Laws are regularly overturned as unconstitutional and no longer enforced because of it. If not the constitution, what do you think prevents our democracy from becoming a dictatorship? I honestly don't think the second amendment is very high on that list right now.
The constitution can only protect us if we let it. A lock on your front door doesnt protect you if the person behind it convinces you to open up and let them in. Obama isnt kicking the door down...... but he's talking people into unlocking their doors.
1, we are not a democracy, we are a republic. Too many people, especially those in DC, have forgotten the difference.
2, the Constitution has been so heavily eroded by the SCOTUS that it is almost meaningless. Just look at the Commerce Clause. With as much as that has been expanded, Congress has the power right now to pass a law saying that you MUST own a vehicle that gets 30mpg, or you pay a 'tax'. That president has already been established with Obamacare. The SCOTUS has even pushed their power so far as they now decide what those that draft a bill want to do. Remember for 2 years we heard the people that write, voted for and signed Obaamcare into law say the fine was a fine, not a tax, yet the SCOTUS said it was a tax.
I would say it is time to get together and draft a new Constitution, but the people that would write it dont have the character to actually do it in a way that is best for the country. It would simply be piece of partisan trash.
We may have a new constitution before its over....... The constitution of the united nations.
Of course the constitution takes a back seat to the will of the people, as it should. The constitution exists to serve the people, not the other way around. If the people decide they want to "unlock their doors", that is their right. Although I think it should be done through the proper channels (i.e., the amendment process).
Why is this an important distinction? Either way, the power rests with the people.
I don't disagree that the constitutional lines have been blurred but Sinflix was arguing about the sanctity of the second amendment while simultaneously saying the constitutional system of checks and balances didn't mean much. He was also implying there wasn't much to keep us from becoming a dictatorship but yet, Obamacare did have to be passed through the congress (with 60 senate votes no less). You may not agree with the SCOTUS decision (I don't either) but we abide by their ruling either way. How many dictators have to go through that sort of process to pass a healthcare law? Checks and balances don't mean we get everything right, it simply means no single group gets too much power. That system still seems alive and well to me.
So if 51% of people want to "unlock their doors" then the other 49% should be forced to?
I believe the amendment requires approval by 2/3 of house and senate and ratification by 3/4 the states. There is also the much less used constitutional convention method. Of course we could theoretically pass an amendment that makes it 51% of the popular vote. Either way, the constitution is changeable by design.
As talks of UN treaty restart.
I really hope she can persuade more people to join in, we need these weapons off the streets honestly.
Yeah, i feel much safer as an american citizen knowing that an 80 year woman who is probably wearing a diaper when she speaks on the floor is still valiantly seeking to push her unconstitutional policies. We need an age limit on our representatives to keep from having another senile old bat like her.
Dear family of Dianne Feinstein, please have your mother put in a nursing home.
How dare you speak like that to someone that serves their country with such a patriotic mindset. Unconstitutional? Owning assault weapons to kill your fellow citizens is unconstitutional and un-American.
Pretty poor trolling.
Being a politician doesnt make you patriotic. In a different era Dianne's actions would have been called treason.
Moving on. So the day after the assault ban gets shot down, we have Obama's first trip to Israel, the media patting Dianne Feinstein on the back and making statements like "Syria and Iran have guns flooding into their country" and suggesting the US should lock down the boarders to prevent gun trafficking.
Sounds like theyre lacing up the gloves for round 2..... UN Arms treaty is back on the front burner.
Agreed.
Liberals never stop, because they cannot be happy until everyone else is as miserable in life as they are.
You might be the wisest person the internet has ever known.
Even if it passed in the UN it isnt getting ratified by the Senate so who cares?
In a republic such as ours, the power rests in the in the rule of law. We have laws a legal regulations that cover everything from the weight of a car to the handing over of power to our national leader. A true democracy is nothing more than mob rule. Think of it in the context of the wild west. Who should have legal authority over a criminal, a marshal, prosecutor, and judge, or a lynch mob? A democracy is a lynch mob.
The SCOTUS decision on Obamacare was far and away the largest power grab by the Congress in American history. The only reason it passed was because of the 2 Obama appointees. 1 was far leftist (Soto-Mayor), the other (Kagan), should have recused herself from the case because of her work on it as part of the Obama Admin.
As far as Sinfix goes, I just ignore him. Most of his comments are so off the wall Biden would be doing a double take.
So at best, our president is a fool for trying? Is it wrong for me to assume that anything they attempt, is at least possible?
If i read tomorrow that "Senator B" wants to mandate that everyone have one of their balls removed. My reaction isnt "that will never happen", it's "holy shit, we have senators trying to remove our balls"
I think you still have a distorted view on what "far-left-ism" is. Sotomayor far from fits this description. Lol.
I'm a "liberal" according to Sinfix and I love everything about my life. lol
Where I come from we call that "goofing off." Trolling is when you're trying to make someone mad.
To some people, unknowingly liberals themselves, they think liberalism is some kind of pejorative, and something to be ashamed of.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
