CDZ Diversity, What's Important?

[MacTheKnife]

hehheh

Reflected yes.....and some have interpeted the second amendment to cover self defense but the founding fathers were not clear at all regarding self defense....there is a huge difference between defending the nation from foreign aggressors and the concept of self defense.

If the constitution clearly spelled out the right to self defense including the use of deadly force and when that is justified.....there would be no reason for each and every state in the union to construct laws on self defense which of course they have and again that is what covers you in real life....not some nebulous concept referred to by the constitution.

The most that can really be said about the constitution and self defense is that it does not reject the concept of self defense. Thus none of the state laws on self-defense can be held to be unconstitutional.

Now I happen to believe there should be something in the constitution that guarantees the right of self defense and exactly when and how the use of deadly force in self defense is justified....and thus if that that were the case everyone in America would be under the same law of self defense....that would eliminate a lot of confusion and the differences in the law of self-defene depending on what state you are in...as in some states you have the right to stand your ground whilst in others you do not.

I would suspect the majority of folks do not even know what the law on self defense is in their own home state ...much less in other states.

A lot of confusion about it. Which was demonstrated very clearly by all the ignorance that was exhibited on the boards about the George Zimmerman affair....admittedly mostly liberals.

Some of them do not even believe in self defense...think you should just run away...and if you get killed trying to run away...they really have no problem with that....especiallly if the perp is black and the victim is white...they will not admit it but they kinda like the idea of the ethnic cleansing of whites....get rid of all dat white guilt boyos. Oh yeh ...dats da ticket.

Here is a link showing how a lot of liberals feel about self defense.............................Do We Have A ‘Right” To Self-Defense? Not Unless The Government Says So.

OMG are you kidding me?

We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness says so right in the DoI, now obviously it then follows that you have the right to protect your life, your liberty, and your ability to pursue happiness

Also, the Constitution does not grant anyone rights, apparently you need to retake 9th grade civics and try for a higher grade than a D- this time. The COTUS restricts government nothing more.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Can anyone say coinfused???

The Bill of Rights ” is the name used to refer to the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Each of the 10 amendments guarantees some essential right that should be afforded to all people

Yes. Each guarantees that the government cannot infringe on rights the Founders recognized as rights the people naturally have--natural rights, God given rights, unalienable rights. As a member pointed out, they specifically said that in the Declaration of Independence and reaffirmed it in the Preamble to the Constitution in the phrase '. . . secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. . .'.

If you ever have to use deadly force to protect your life and are brought to trial...do you think your lawyer will talk about God Given rights or natural rights?

Of course not...he will immediately trot out the state law on self defense.

You are arguing theory and pointing out philosophical concepts which influenced the founders when they wrote the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

What I am talking about is the law of self defense....and how it is the state law on self defense that will protect you if you did follow the law in your defense of your life.

Again if the Constitution had spelled out or talked about how one is entitled to use deadly force in defense of their life if they are in REASONABLE fear of their life...none of these state laws on self defense would have been needed.

Any lawyer I would hire definitely would.

I would expect there to be an investigation to be sure that I did shoot in self defense. Just as I approve of investigation of police shootings to determine that they were necessary or reasonable according to established protocol. I do not expect any police officer to submit to shooting or other mayhem because the protocol does not allow deadly force. And I do not expect to have to submit to rape or battery or worse just because some people believe guns are not a reasonable means of self defense.

Do you know what the law on self-defense is in your state? Do you understand what 'stand your ground'...means? Do you understand that not all states have a stand your ground law? Do you know that in states that do not have the 'stand your ground law' you are required to flee from your attacker if at all possible?

Do you understand what the law is on guns in your state? Does your state allow the carrying of a concealed weapon if you are properly licensed?

All this is covered by your state law....not the constitution.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes. Each guarantees that the government cannot infringe on rights the Founders recognized as rights the people naturally have--natural rights, God given rights, unalienable rights. As a member pointed out, they specifically said that in the Declaration of Independence and reaffirmed it in the Preamble to the Constitution in the phrase '. . . secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. . .'.

If you ever have to use deadly force to protect your life and are brought to trial...do you think your lawyer will talk about God Given rights or natural rights?

Of course not...he will immediately trot out the state law on self defense.

You are arguing theory and pointing out philosophical concepts which influenced the founders when they wrote the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

What I am talking about is the law of self defense....and how it is the state law on self defense that will protect you if you did follow the law in your defense of your life.

Again if the Constitution had spelled out or talked about how one is entitled to use deadly force in defense of their life if they are in REASONABLE fear of their life...none of these state laws on self defense would have been needed.

Any lawyer I would hire definitely would.

I would expect there to be an investigation to be sure that I did shoot in self defense. Just as I approve of investigation of police shootings to determine that they were necessary or reasonable according to established protocol. I do not expect any police officer to submit to shooting or other mayhem because the protocol does not allow deadly force. And I do not expect to have to submit to rape or battery or worse just because some people believe guns are not a reasonable means of self defense.

You need to get down off your high horse and come to grips with the fact that we are a nation of laws. That is what governs us and what we must live by and what gives us the protections we do have.

Personally, I really have no problem with claiming there are God given rights....but how has that worked out for most of the world?

Ever since the dawn of creation mankind has been afflicted with cruel despots, totolatarian regimes, communism, nazism, wholesale slaughter of human beings ....millions have been killed, starved to death by dictators etc.etc.

Were all these folks in the past that suffered so much covered by natural law or inalienable rights?

Did it help them. Did thee so called natural rights do anything whatsoever to stop the slaughter, the slavery, etc.?

I'll just chalk your post up here to somebody who really doesn't understand that the principles most of us are arguing here do not in any way negate that we are a nation of laws. Nor are we arguing that it is not necessary for government to enforce necessary laws. You don't seem to comprehend that we are a nation that is constitutionally prohibited from passing laws that violate the unalienable rights of the people.

We were the first and remain the only country founded and governed on that basic principle. It has produced the most free, generous, prosperous, innovative, and strong nation the world has ever known.

“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 of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government …”

Yet there is not a specific list of rights that are considered inalienable in the Constitution such as self defense...all one can say is that the right of self defense is merely referred or alluded to in the constitution..... It took specific action by the States to make self defense legal.

Thus without a government to secure the rights....they are of no practical use...except in philosophical or religious discussions.

What made America great was the establishment of a government that secured the belief in liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc.

So what made America different? Why is it that most of mankind has suffered under totolitarian regimes of the most brutal nature?

What was unique about America that allowed liberty to flourish?

I would say it was the religious beliefs of most of the people of that time...many had fled here seeking religious freedom.

So I think in essence we would agree on that. Yet, my point is that one cannot rely on idealism, beliefs of a religious nature, natural rights etc. in and of themselves....there must be some who are willing to fight, to die to secure those beliefs....yet even if there are many willing to fight and die for their beliefs....there is no guarantee of success. Look at the South....fervent believers willing to fight and die to preserve their culture and society....yet they were defeated. Many if not most struggles for liberty and freedom around the world have failed.

Even here there is a contant struggle for liberty,freedom of speech etc. It appears that we are beginning to lose that fight and may well wind up a marxist/sociialist nation. Political correctness is replacing our historic devotion to liberty.

Unalienable rights are those that require no participation or contribution by any other. The right to be who and what we are and do what we please, believe what we believe, think what we think, speak our opinions, and defend our persons and our property as we must, to form ourselves into whatever sorts of societies we wish to have so long as we do not infringe on anybody else's rights to do the same are our unalienable rights. And the Constitution was given no power of any kind to interfere with that in any way.

There is absolutely no way anyone could even anticipate, much less enumerate what all unalienable rights are because the scope is endless. Those of the Founders who opposed the Bill of Rights did so because they feared that to list ANY of our unalienable rights would be interpreted by some as the ONLY unalienable rights protected by the Constitution.

And yes, those of us liberated by the Constitution were cautioned to be ever vigilant and be prepared to defend our rights as there would always be those both within the nation and from outside the nation who would take them away if allowed to do so.

The radical America left is engaged in that very effort to define and dictate what rights the people will have and what they will not have.

 

[MacTheKnife]

If you ever have to use deadly force to protect your life and are brought to trial...do you think your lawyer will talk about God Given rights or natural rights?

Of course not...he will immediately trot out the state law on self defense.

You are arguing theory and pointing out philosophical concepts which influenced the founders when they wrote the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

What I am talking about is the law of self defense....and how it is the state law on self defense that will protect you if you did follow the law in your defense of your life.

Again if the Constitution had spelled out or talked about how one is entitled to use deadly force in defense of their life if they are in REASONABLE fear of their life...none of these state laws on self defense would have been needed.

Any lawyer I would hire definitely would.

I would expect there to be an investigation to be sure that I did shoot in self defense. Just as I approve of investigation of police shootings to determine that they were necessary or reasonable according to established protocol. I do not expect any police officer to submit to shooting or other mayhem because the protocol does not allow deadly force. And I do not expect to have to submit to rape or battery or worse just because some people believe guns are not a reasonable means of self defense.

You need to get down off your high horse and come to grips with the fact that we are a nation of laws. That is what governs us and what we must live by and what gives us the protections we do have.

Personally, I really have no problem with claiming there are God given rights....but how has that worked out for most of the world?

Ever since the dawn of creation mankind has been afflicted with cruel despots, totolatarian regimes, communism, nazism, wholesale slaughter of human beings ....millions have been killed, starved to death by dictators etc.etc.

Were all these folks in the past that suffered so much covered by natural law or inalienable rights?

Did it help them. Did thee so called natural rights do anything whatsoever to stop the slaughter, the slavery, etc.?

I'll just chalk your post up here to somebody who really doesn't understand that the principles most of us are arguing here do not in any way negate that we are a nation of laws. Nor are we arguing that it is not necessary for government to enforce necessary laws. You don't seem to comprehend that we are a nation that is constitutionally prohibited from passing laws that violate the unalienable rights of the people.

We were the first and remain the only country founded and governed on that basic principle. It has produced the most free, generous, prosperous, innovative, and strong nation the world has ever known.

“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 of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government …”

Yet there is not a specific list of rights that are considered inalienable in the Constitution such as self defense...all one can say is that the right of self defense is merely referred or alluded to in the constitution..... It took specific action by the States to make self defense legal.

Thus without a government to secure the rights....they are of no practical use...except in philosophical or religious discussions.

What made America great was the establishment of a government that secured the belief in liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc.

So what made America different? Why is it that most of mankind has suffered under totolitarian regimes of the most brutal nature?

What was unique about America that allowed liberty to flourish?

I would say it was the religious beliefs of most of the people of that time...many had fled here seeking religious freedom.

So I think in essence we would agree on that. Yet, my point is that one cannot rely on idealism, beliefs of a religious nature, natural rights etc. in and of themselves....there must be some who are willing to fight, to die to secure those beliefs....yet even if there are many willing to fight and die for their beliefs....there is no guarantee of success. Look at the South....fervent believers willing to fight and die to preserve their culture and society....yet they were defeated. Many if not most struggles for liberty and freedom around the world have failed.

Even here there is a contant struggle for liberty,freedom of speech etc. It appears that we are beginning to lose that fight and may well wind up a marxist/sociialist nation. Political correctness is replacing our historic devotion to liberty.

Unalienable rights are those that require no participation or contribution by any other. The right to be who and what we are and do what we please, believe what we believe, think what we think, speak our opinions, and defend our persons and our property as we must, to form ourselves into whatever sorts of societies we wish to have so long as we do not infringe on anybody else's rights to do the same are our unalienable rights. And the Constitution was given no power of any kind to interfere with that in any way.

There is absolutely no way anyone could even anticipate, much less enumerate what all unalienable rights are because the scope is endless. Those of the Founders who opposed the Bill of Rights did so because they feared that to list ANY of our unalienable rights would be interpreted by some as the ONLY unalienable rights protected by the Constitution.

And yes, those of us liberated by the Constitution were cautioned to be ever vigilant and be prepared to defend our rights as there would always be those both within the nation and from outside the nation who would take them away if allowed to do so.

The radical America left is engaged in that very effort to define and dictate what rights the people will have and what they will not have.

I accept the idea or belief that there are rights that all people have --being created in the image of God....sometimes referred to as natural rights, human rights, inalienable rights, or unalienable rights....

I accept the idea that such rights are of a divine nature...meaning designed by our Creator for all of mankind.....and when the Messiah returns and establishes the Kingdom of God on Earth....all people will be able to exercise those rights and no one or thing will be able to prevent all from exercising such rights which will be secured for eternity by our Lord.

Until then..............we can only struggle and fight for them and Americans probably are more blessed than most in regards to having many of those rights secured under our form of government....but the sad truth is....most of mankind comes no-where near having those rights in a real sense where they can actually exercise them.

The inability to exercise those God Given rights does not mean you or anyone does not have them...it simply means those rights have not been secured..... In the sense the people are unable to exercise them....which again does not mean such rights have not been bestowed on all by the creator in a spiritual sense...it simply means that most are unable to exercise their God-Given rights because they live in nations where such rights have not been secured for them as of yet.

I asked you once how you defined 'rights' and you declined to answer. That is where our difference I think is.

My concept of a right is that it is something you possess of which no one can legally interfere with in your exercise of that right.

When the Messiah returns no one or any thing will be able to interfere with those rights in any way shape or form...legal or otherwise. They will be ingrained in the heart of all believers and thus that is what is known as Heaven the promised inheritance of all believers.

Under the constitution we all supposedly have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Nebulous terms interpeted in different ways. I think most would agree on what life is but even liberty is not undertood well...many confuse it with licentiousness. A totally different thing...the only true liberty comes from a belief in the Lord...it is certainly not bestowed on any one by some human document such as the constitution...what did the founders mean by 'pursuit of happiness'? I think it meant that the government should not be allowed to harass or interfere in the daily life of any citizen...that people should be free to pursue their life as they see fit as long as they abide by the law.

Though the American constitution being a human document is flawed ....in a practical sense it has established a government that has worked very well...exceedingly well in comparison to most governments and it has allowed Americans more liberty than most in this temporal world.

I maintain though that what really has made it all possible in America has been the nature of the American people...particuarly the fact that America was for the most part settled by evangelical Christians.

What we see happening now and it is most disturbing is an influx of people with alien religions. Religions that enslave people such as Islam. Or the satanic religions...huge upsurge in that...voodooism and a mixture of that with Catholicism as practiced in many places in Africa and Mexico.

Thus due to all the multi-culturalism our society is beginning to unravel...look at the mess in Washington...look at all our big cities....very unsafe places.

Santeria: A mix of African Voodoo and Catholicism

 

[Foxfyre]

Any lawyer I would hire definitely would.

I would expect there to be an investigation to be sure that I did shoot in self defense. Just as I approve of investigation of police shootings to determine that they were necessary or reasonable according to established protocol. I do not expect any police officer to submit to shooting or other mayhem because the protocol does not allow deadly force. And I do not expect to have to submit to rape or battery or worse just because some people believe guns are not a reasonable means of self defense.

You need to get down off your high horse and come to grips with the fact that we are a nation of laws. That is what governs us and what we must live by and what gives us the protections we do have.

Personally, I really have no problem with claiming there are God given rights....but how has that worked out for most of the world?

Ever since the dawn of creation mankind has been afflicted with cruel despots, totolatarian regimes, communism, nazism, wholesale slaughter of human beings ....millions have been killed, starved to death by dictators etc.etc.

Were all these folks in the past that suffered so much covered by natural law or inalienable rights?

Did it help them. Did thee so called natural rights do anything whatsoever to stop the slaughter, the slavery, etc.?

I'll just chalk your post up here to somebody who really doesn't understand that the principles most of us are arguing here do not in any way negate that we are a nation of laws. Nor are we arguing that it is not necessary for government to enforce necessary laws. You don't seem to comprehend that we are a nation that is constitutionally prohibited from passing laws that violate the unalienable rights of the people.

We were the first and remain the only country founded and governed on that basic principle. It has produced the most free, generous, prosperous, innovative, and strong nation the world has ever known.

“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 of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government …”

Yet there is not a specific list of rights that are considered inalienable in the Constitution such as self defense...all one can say is that the right of self defense is merely referred or alluded to in the constitution..... It took specific action by the States to make self defense legal.

Thus without a government to secure the rights....they are of no practical use...except in philosophical or religious discussions.

What made America great was the establishment of a government that secured the belief in liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc.

So what made America different? Why is it that most of mankind has suffered under totolitarian regimes of the most brutal nature?

What was unique about America that allowed liberty to flourish?

I would say it was the religious beliefs of most of the people of that time...many had fled here seeking religious freedom.

So I think in essence we would agree on that. Yet, my point is that one cannot rely on idealism, beliefs of a religious nature, natural rights etc. in and of themselves....there must be some who are willing to fight, to die to secure those beliefs....yet even if there are many willing to fight and die for their beliefs....there is no guarantee of success. Look at the South....fervent believers willing to fight and die to preserve their culture and society....yet they were defeated. Many if not most struggles for liberty and freedom around the world have failed.

Even here there is a contant struggle for liberty,freedom of speech etc. It appears that we are beginning to lose that fight and may well wind up a marxist/sociialist nation. Political correctness is replacing our historic devotion to liberty.

Unalienable rights are those that require no participation or contribution by any other. The right to be who and what we are and do what we please, believe what we believe, think what we think, speak our opinions, and defend our persons and our property as we must, to form ourselves into whatever sorts of societies we wish to have so long as we do not infringe on anybody else's rights to do the same are our unalienable rights. And the Constitution was given no power of any kind to interfere with that in any way.

There is absolutely no way anyone could even anticipate, much less enumerate what all unalienable rights are because the scope is endless. Those of the Founders who opposed the Bill of Rights did so because they feared that to list ANY of our unalienable rights would be interpreted by some as the ONLY unalienable rights protected by the Constitution.

And yes, those of us liberated by the Constitution were cautioned to be ever vigilant and be prepared to defend our rights as there would always be those both within the nation and from outside the nation who would take them away if allowed to do so.

The radical America left is engaged in that very effort to define and dictate what rights the people will have and what they will not have.

I accept the idea or belief that there are rights that all people have --being created in the image of God....sometimes referred to as natural rights, human rights, inalienable rights, or unalienable rights....

I accept the idea that such rights are of a divine nature...meaning designed by our Creator for all of mankind.....and when the Messiah returns and establishes the Kingdom of God on Earth....all people will be able to exercise those rights and no one or thing will be able to prevent all from exercising such rights which will be secured for eternity by our Lord.

Until then..............we can only struggle and fight for them and Americans probably are more blessed than most in regards to having many of those rights secured under our form of government....but the sad truth is....most of mankind comes no-where near having those rights in a real sense where they can actually exercise them.

The inability to exercise those God Given rights does not mean you or anyone does not have them...it simply means those rights have not been secured..... In the sense the people are unable to exercise them....which again does not mean such rights have not been bestowed on all by the creator in a spiritual sense...it simply means that most are unable to exercise their God-Given rights because they live in nations where such rights have not been secured for them as of yet.

I asked you once how you defined 'rights' and you declined to answer. That is where our difference I think is.

My concept of a right is that it is something you possess of which no one can legally interfere with in your exercise of that right.

When the Messiah returns no one or any thing will be able to interfere with those rights in any way shape or form...legal or otherwise. They will be ingrained in the heart of all believers and thus that is what is known as Heaven the promised inheritance of all believers.

Under the constitution we all supposedly have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Nebulous terms interpeted in different ways. I think most would agree on what life is but even liberty is not undertood well...many confuse it with licentiousness. A totally different thing...the only true liberty comes from a belief in the Lord...it is certainly not bestowed on any one by some human document such as the constitution...what did the founders mean by 'pursuit of happiness'? I think it meant that the government should not be allowed to harass or interfere in the daily life of any citizen...that people should be free to pursue their life as they see fit as long as they abide by the law.

Though the American constitution being a human document is flawed ....in a practical sense it has established a government that has worked very well...exceedingly well in comparison to most governments and it has allowed Americans more liberty than most in this temporal world.

I maintain though that what really has made it all possible in America has been the nature of the American people...particuarly the fact that America was for the most part settled by evangelical Christians.

What we see happening now and it is most disturbing is an influx of people with alien religions. Religions that enslave people such as Islam. Or the satanic religions...huge upsurge in that...voodooism and a mixture of that with Catholicism as practiced in many places in Africa and Mexico.

Thus due to all the multi-culturalism our society is beginning to unravel...look at the mess in Washington...look at all our big cities....very unsafe places.

Santeria: A mix of African Voodoo and Catholicism

We are probably arguing on the same side of the fence but from different perspectives.

Returning the topic to that of the benefits or lack thereof of more or less diversity, diversity is great if you want a really diverse experience. An international festival for instance wouldn't really work unless you have a lot of different countries and the unique aspects of their culture--dress, dance, food, art etc.--represented.

But to require diversity at the cost of lowered qualification standards or inserting opposing agendas into what should be a cohesive unit should not be acceptable or desirable to anybody.

I don't know how many owners/managers of smaller work forces--four to twenty or so--have told me how difficult it is to put together an effective team whether it is in a mechanic garage or warehouse or assembly line or bakery or whatever. They say that age, race, ethnicity, etc. plays a much lesser role in that than does having people who are compatible and can work together effectively and happily. One poor fit can make it miserable for everybody.

And having been in management myself and run my own small business, I know that to be very true.

Diversity is highly overrated.