Another shooting. Defending the indefensible.

[GaryA]

So what I'm hearing is that I am no smarter or funnier than anyone else but am faster or by dumb luck just happened across the right thread at the right time. Also, that had you chosen such professional endeavor, you would have been quite the straight man in a comic duo.

I was musing at the idea at the time I was thinking it - my last post was not intended to be a serious judgmental statement.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

Not an April Fool's Joke

 

[Cameron143]

I was musing at the idea at the time I was thinking it - my last post was not intended to be a serious judgmental statement.

I know. I'm just goofing.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

I'm not arguing that governments or employers have abusive policies. I'm merely pointing out that driving isn't a God given right or a constitutional right.
The right to own guns is not a God given right either. But it is constitutionally protected and without exception according to the constitution of the United States.

When I read the Bill of rights, I don't expect that freedom of speech and press was confined to the old fashioned block presses and soap boxes of the day. Likewise I have no reason to believe that the RTKBA only applies to swords, tomahawks and single shot barrel loaded weapons of the time. I apply that to breach loaded and center-fire magazine fed repeaters too. A hostile power intent on killing others who might not submit to servitude upon request want them to be weak. Believe the third of a billion victims of the past century about that fact. Their own psycho reprobates who claimed to be a legitimate authority over subjects murdered them.

The federal and state constitutions did not enumerate all rights which God gave. They were but limited documents of men that would only be applicable by a moral and free society who used the Bible as their law book.

I will admit that I find this discussion with you much more civil than those with lawyers and judges at holidays and gatherings.

 

[GaryA]

Name a false flag mass shooting. I'm curious.

All of them?

(or, at least, the absolute majority of them)

Why do we have laws in my country against allowing guns in schools? (the real reason)

So that the DS SG establishment can create 'false flag' events with which to lobby for gun control.

It has nothing to do with protecting children while they are at school. It is about using them for political purposes.

If people know and understood the real reasons for things - they have a better chance at coming up with the proper solutions - instead of just getting deeper into the quagmire...

ALL of the proper solutions "begin at home" and are related to how we wish to conduct our society and what we are willing to do in order to have it. There can be no solution to a problem as long as you accept-as-valid the root cause of the problem. And, guns are not the root cause of the problem. And, the government is not the solution.

The real solutions have been long-forgotten since statements like the following lost great popularity among the people:

"The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world."

The real solutions are outside of the issue altogether.

The real solutions do not have anything at all to do with guns.

The root cause of the problem exists in the hearts and minds of people.

This cannot be ignored when working towards a real good-and-proper solution.

 

[Cameron143]

When I read the Bill of rights, I don't expect that freedom of speech and press was confined to the old fashioned block presses and soap boxes of the day. Likewise I have no reason to believe that the RTKBA only applies to swords, tomahawks and single shot barrel loaded weapons of the time. I apply that to breach loaded and center-fire magazine fed repeaters too. A hostile power intent on killing others who might not submit to servitude upon request want them to be weak. Believe the third of a billion victims of the past century about that fact. Their own psycho reprobates who claimed to be a legitimate authority over subjects murdered them.

The federal and state constitutions did not enumerate all rights which God gave. They were but limited documents of men that would only be applicable by a moral and free society who used the Bible as their law book.

I will admit that I find this discussion with you much more civil than those with lawyers and judges at holidays and gatherings.

At this point I'm not sure of the point of the discussion. A poster was implying that by having restrictions on driving he had surrendered some rights. I merely posted that there wasn't a natural or God given right or a constitutional right to drive.

I'm not against government. I'm against bad governance. There is a big difference between governing and ruling.

I'm not even against limitations on freedoms. The right to free speech doesn't include being able to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Our rights to many things ends at the tip of someone else's nose or property line. But there is a reason that the founder's of this nation said the right to bear arms should not be infringed. And it is precisely as you have stated.
It is worth noting: no other right is so described...shall not be infringed. Why? Because by the 2nd amendment all other rights can be preserved.

 

[GaryA]

If people know and understood

understand

I started out with "knew and understood" - changed the sentence structure - missed this word...

 

[ZNP]

I'm not even against limitations on freedoms. The right to free speech doesn't include being able to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

Really? What are you supposed to do if there is a fire? What if you think there is a fire? What happened to "see something, say something"?

They use this example to censor people who were raising issues with the vaccine and Fauci. But think about it, to do a proper scientific study can take 12 months to collect data, and another six months to evaluate the data. Since it might take six months before there are enough people vaccinated to start collecting data it can take two years before you actually had proof. So back in 2021 when they mandated the vaccine we didn't have scientific proof there was a problem with the vaccine. Still we had lots of reasons to question it. Yet the justification for censoring us was it was likened to yelling fire in a theater, you have no proof of a fire, just a hunch.

I would say you do have freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater, but like any right you also will be held accountable for your actions. The right to bear arms does not mean you are free to shoot innocent people. Freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to slander others. Instead it prohibits the US government from censoring you.

 

[GaryA]

I'm not against government. I'm against bad governance. There is a big difference between governing and ruling.

I agree with this statement.

The right to free speech doesn't include being able to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

Technically speaking - you have the 'right' to yell "fire" in a crowded theater - but, must also accept the consequences due to the associated responsibility. And, it is irresponsible to yell "fire" in a crowded theater - and cause chaos, confusion, injury, etc. - if there is insufficient reason to do so in any particular scenario. (If there really is a fire, then it may be valid and the responsible thing to do.)

Our rights to many things ends at the tip of someone else's nose or property line.

There has to be "equal balance" somewhere...

It is worth noting: no other right is so described...shall not be infringed. Why? Because by the 2nd amendment all other rights can be preserved.

A good point and nice way to put it.

 

[GaryA]

So back in 2021 when they mandated the vaccine we didn't have scientific proof there was a problem with the vaccine. Still we had lots of reasons to question it. Yet the justification for censoring us was it was likened to yelling fire in a theater, you have no proof of a fire, just a hunch.

Anyone who did this missed the point entirely and made a very bad use of it for an example...

 

[Cameron143]

Really? What are you supposed to do if there is a fire? What if you think there is a fire? What happened to "see something, say something"?

They use this example to censor people who were raising issues with the vaccine and Fauci. But think about it, to do a proper scientific study can take 12 months to collect data, and another six months to evaluate the data. Since it might take six months before there are enough people vaccinated to start collecting data it can take two years before you actually had proof. So back in 2021 when they mandated the vaccine we didn't have scientific proof there was a problem with the vaccine. Still we had lots of reasons to question it. Yet the justification for censoring us was it was likened to yelling fire in a theater, you have no proof of a fire, just a hunch.

I would say you do have freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater, but like any right you also will be held accountable for your actions. The right to bear arms does not mean you are free to shoot innocent people. Freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to slander others. Instead it prohibits the US government from censoring you.

Of course if there is a fire you should let people know. And I understand that the constitution is there to limit government. But your statements assume things I didn't intend.
Many times when there has been abuse of something, there is an equal and opposite reaction...sometimes overreaction. People stand ready to criticize things that can even remotely be misconstrued.
Surely there is a difference between not yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and the wholesale censorship of an entire point of view.

 

[ZNP]

Of course if there is a fire you should let people know. And I understand that the constitution is there to limit government. But your statements assume things I didn't intend.
Many times when there has been abuse of something, there is an equal and opposite reaction...sometimes overreaction. People stand ready to criticize things that can even remotely be misconstrued.
Surely there is a difference between not yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and the wholesale censorship of an entire point of view.

In the last two years we have heard people in government use this phrase that "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" as a basis to curtailing rights. It is a false analogy.

You can yell fire in a crowded theater, in some situations you should yell fire and in other situations you may be held liable for your actions and be sued. The bill of rights doesn't mean we are free of liability for our actions, it means the government has no right to curtail those freedoms. The reason government officials use this analogy is because they are trying to curtail those freedoms.

There is nothing hypothetical about this, Twitter, WAPO, NY Times and others censored a lot of information. Hunter Biden's laptop was censored because it was seen as being able to unfairly bias the election and then ironically by censoring it they unfairly biased the election.

911 was used to pass the Patriot act which bypassed some of our rights to be free from warrantless searches. The Pandemic was used to violate our rights concerning freedom of religion and freedom of speech. If we allow exceptions to the rule then you can be sure the government will manufacture those exceptions.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

Really? What are you supposed to do if there is a fire? What if you think there is a fire? What happened to "see something, say something"?

They use this example to censor people who were raising issues with the vaccine and Fauci. But think about it, to do a proper scientific study can take 12 months to collect data, and another six months to evaluate the data. Since it might take six months before there are enough people vaccinated to start collecting data it can take two years before you actually had proof. So back in 2021 when they mandated the vaccine we didn't have scientific proof there was a problem with the vaccine. Still we had lots of reasons to question it. Yet the justification for censoring us was it was likened to yelling fire in a theater, you have no proof of a fire, just a hunch.

I would say you do have freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater, but like any right you also will be held accountable for your actions. The right to bear arms does not mean you are free to shoot innocent people. Freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to slander others. Instead it prohibits the US government from censoring you.

Yes, that's what the signers made clear. The BORs were restrictions upon gt, not a list of what the people were allowed to do.

 

[Cameron143]

In the last two years we have heard people in government use this phrase that "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" as a basis to curtailing rights. It is a false analogy.

You can yell fire in a crowded theater, in some situations you should yell fire and in other situations you may be held liable for your actions and be sued. The bill of rights doesn't mean we are free of liability for our actions, it means the government has no right to curtail those freedoms. The reason government officials use this analogy is because they are trying to curtail those freedoms.

There is nothing hypothetical about this, Twitter, WAPO, NY Times and others censored a lot of information. Hunter Biden's laptop was censored because it was seen as being able to unfairly bias the election and then ironically by censoring it they unfairly biased the election.

911 was used to pass the Patriot act which bypassed some of our rights to be free from warrantless searches. The Pandemic was used to violate our rights concerning freedom of religion and freedom of speech. If we allow exceptions to the rule then you can be sure the government will manufacture those exceptions.

All that can be true as well as that's not how I intended the term. Because someone else uses a term to mean one thing doesn't mean everyone does.
If I had used the term 5 years ago would your response be the same?
Now I've clearly told you twice that what I intended in using the phrase is not what you assumed. Do you still think what you assumed I meant is what I actually meant?

 

[ZNP]

All that can be true as well as that's not how I intended the term. Because someone else uses a term to mean one thing doesn't mean everyone does.
If I had used the term 5 years ago would your response be the same?
Now I've clearly told you twice that what I intended in using the phrase is not what you assumed. Do you still think what you assumed I meant is what I actually meant?

It doesn't matter. I am sharing this because it has been misused and it is important that we emphasize what the truth is because many people, maybe even 50% of the population went with the abuse of terms.

For example the 2nd amendment is about a well regulated militia. Obviously those are not hunting rifles, what is wrong with a state militia having F16s and Tanks? Yet that doesn't stop President Biden from mocking and insulting people. Bottom line, US president cannot infringe on our rights, but each state can regulate their own militia.

 

[Truth01]

As a country moving from christianity to atheism what would be important changes to make. Possibly firstly removing corporal punishment for children would be a necessary move. What would the best move to make in terms of gun laws in your opinion?

 

[ZNP]

As a country moving from christianity to atheism what would be important changes to make. Possibly firstly removing corporal punishment for children would be a necessary move. What would the best move to make in terms of gun laws in your opinion?

If you are moving from Christianity to atheism and you are looking for the most important change to stop this then it is obviously the gospel and to see that Jesus is the way, the truth and the light, no one comes to the Father but by Him.

 

[Dude653]

All of them?

(or, at least, the absolute majority of them)

Why do we have laws in my country against allowing guns in schools? (the real reason)

So that the DS SG establishment can create 'false flag' events with which to lobby for gun control.

It has nothing to do with protecting children while they are at school. It is about using them for political purposes.

If people know and understood the real reasons for things - they have a better chance at coming up with the proper solutions - instead of just getting deeper into the quagmire...

ALL of the proper solutions "begin at home" and are related to how we wish to conduct our society and what we are willing to do in order to have it. There can be no solution to a problem as long as you accept-as-valid the root cause of the problem. And, guns are not the root cause of the problem. And, the government is not the solution.

The real solutions have been long-forgotten since statements like the following lost great popularity among the people:

"The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world."

The real solutions are outside of the issue altogether.

The real solutions do not have anything at all to do with guns.

The root cause of the problem exists in the hearts and minds of people.

This cannot be ignored when working towards a real good-and-proper solution.

You need to take off the tin foil hat and come back to reality

 

[ZNP]

You need to take off the tin foil hat and come back to reality

Is that the 37th time you have said that? Do you live next to a big transformer or some other thing that requires you and your friends to always wear tin foil hats?

 

[Dude653]

Is that the 37th time you have said that? Do you live next to a big transformer or some other thing that requires you and your friends to always wear tin foil hats?

Because I live in reality where mass shootings are a real thing. Pretending something isn't real doesn't make your opinion valid