Obamacare Gun Control

OK, that is just stupid.


Is it? Suppose a doctor had asked Timothy McVeigh or Terry Nichols that question.

Remind me again what guns they used when they committed their crimes? I swear... Some of you are complete idiots.

Well...it would have been a little silly for a doctor to ask, "Say..ya got a truck load of fertilizer parked around your place somewhere?" Wouldn't it?

But...if a doctor had been concerned about their mental state, and been allowed to report that this disturbed person had access to guns, and had law enforcement had the power to intervene, don't you think it's possible they might have been prevented from blowing up the Murrah building?

The question is: If it had been possible, would it have been a fair trade off of rights for safety? Ultimately, that's the question, isn't it?
 
The question is: If it had been possible, would it have been a fair trade off of rights for safety? Ultimately, that's the question, isn't it?

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.


You sacrifice some of your freedoms for security and safety every day.

For instance, you sacrifice your freedom to drive drunk in the name of safety. You sacrifice your freedom to drive as fast as you like for safety. You sacrifice your freedom to go without insurance to protect yourself from people just like you. The list goes on and on and on.

The point is that there is always a trade off between freedom and safety. It's just a part of living in a nation of laws, rather than anarchy.

The only question left to answer is how MUCH freedom you will exchange for safety and THAT is a value judgment which changes over time and is expressed through our elected officials.

Boiled down to its essentials, the current debate over gun controls is just another debate about how much freedom we're willing to surrender for a larger good. The People will answer that.

In fact, The People have answered that....for now.
 
Last edited:
The question is: If it had been possible, would it have been a fair trade off of rights for safety? Ultimately, that's the question, isn't it?

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.


You sacrifice some of your freedoms for security and safety every day.

For instance, you sacrifice your freedom to drive drunk in the name of safety. You sacrifice your freedom to drive as fast as you like for safety. You sacrifice your freedom to go without insurance to protect yourself from people just like you. The list goes on and on and on.

The point is that there is always a trade off between freedom and safety. It's just a part of living in a nation of laws, rather than anarchy.

The only question left to answer is how MUCH freedom you will exchange for safety and THAT is a value judgment which changes over time and is expressed through our elected officials.

Boiled down to its essentials, the current debate over gun controls is just another debate about how much freedom we're willing to surrender for a larger good. The People will answer that.

In fact, The People have answered that....for now.

Just because freedom has already been usurped in the name of safety doesn't mean we need to embrace the continued tarnishing of our liberties for more security theater.

The point is that these things rarely make you safer and each time we agree to "give up rights" (as if we have a choice) the precedent of government control grows more formidable.
 
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.


You sacrifice some of your freedoms for security and safety every day.

For instance, you sacrifice your freedom to drive drunk in the name of safety. You sacrifice your freedom to drive as fast as you like for safety. You sacrifice your freedom to go without insurance to protect yourself from people just like you. The list goes on and on and on.

The point is that there is always a trade off between freedom and safety. It's just a part of living in a nation of laws, rather than anarchy.

The only question left to answer is how MUCH freedom you will exchange for safety and THAT is a value judgment which changes over time and is expressed through our elected officials.

Boiled down to its essentials, the current debate over gun controls is just another debate about how much freedom we're willing to surrender for a larger good. The People will answer that.

In fact, The People have answered that....for now.

Just because freedom has already been usurped in the name of safety doesn't mean we need to embrace the continued tarnishing of our liberties for more security theater.

The point is that these things rarely make you safer and each time we agree to "give up rights" (as if we have a choice) the precedent of government control grows more formidable.

I agree in principle, but what if The People Want it? It seems pretty apparent to me that most people want something done in the aftermath of Newtown, don't you agree?
 
You sacrifice some of your freedoms for security and safety every day.

For instance, you sacrifice your freedom to drive drunk in the name of safety. You sacrifice your freedom to drive as fast as you like for safety. You sacrifice your freedom to go without insurance to protect yourself from people just like you. The list goes on and on and on.

The point is that there is always a trade off between freedom and safety. It's just a part of living in a nation of laws, rather than anarchy.

The only question left to answer is how MUCH freedom you will exchange for safety and THAT is a value judgment which changes over time and is expressed through our elected officials.

Boiled down to its essentials, the current debate over gun controls is just another debate about how much freedom we're willing to surrender for a larger good. The People will answer that.

In fact, The People have answered that....for now.

Just because freedom has already been usurped in the name of safety doesn't mean we need to embrace the continued tarnishing of our liberties for more security theater.

The point is that these things rarely make you safer and each time we agree to "give up rights" (as if we have a choice) the precedent of government control grows more formidable.

I agree in principle, but what if The People Want it? It seems pretty apparent to me that most people want something done in the aftermath of Newtown, don't you agree?

Not really. It seems the media wants something done and many of the politicians with a D next their name want something done. I have no idea how the majority of Americans feel but based on the following map I'm guessing they want their guns.

The problem with "the people" wanting something is that it really isn't "the people" as much as it is a group of people. Even if that group is the majority, they are still oppressing the minority by making them live and act in ways they believe to be unjust.

In my humble opinion, one of the greatest attributes of a "free state", which we are not, is the ability to opt out of things.
 
Just because freedom has already been usurped in the name of safety doesn't mean we need to embrace the continued tarnishing of our liberties for more security theater.

The point is that these things rarely make you safer and each time we agree to "give up rights" (as if we have a choice) the precedent of government control grows more formidable.

I agree in principle, but what if The People Want it? It seems pretty apparent to me that most people want something done in the aftermath of Newtown, don't you agree?

Not really. It seems the media wants something done and many of the politicians with a D next their name want something done. I have no idea how the majority of Americans feel but based on the following map I'm guessing they want their guns.

The problem with "the people" wanting something is that it really isn't "the people" as much as it is a group of people. Even if that group is the majority, they are still oppressing the minority by making them live and act in ways they believe to be unjust.

In my humble opinion, one of the greatest attributes of a "free state", which we are not, is the ability to opt out of things.


You can't have the ability to "opt" out of self-government, nor can you claim the "right" to ignore the Will of The People. If you can do that, what's the point of having any government at all?
 
I agree in principle, but what if The People Want it? It seems pretty apparent to me that most people want something done in the aftermath of Newtown, don't you agree?

Not really. It seems the media wants something done and many of the politicians with a D next their name want something done. I have no idea how the majority of Americans feel but based on the following map I'm guessing they want their guns.

The problem with "the people" wanting something is that it really isn't "the people" as much as it is a group of people. Even if that group is the majority, they are still oppressing the minority by making them live and act in ways they believe to be unjust.

In my humble opinion, one of the greatest attributes of a "free state", which we are not, is the ability to opt out of things.


You can't have the ability to "opt" out of self-government, nor can you claim the "right" to ignore the Will of The People. If you can do that, what's the point of having any government at all?

I ask myself on a damn near daily basis what the point of having any government is. I have yet to come up with an answer that satisfies me. Better yet, I have yet to come up with an answer where the negatives outweigh the positives.

I would also argue pretty strong that we are hardly "self-governed". You can argue that sure, we elect the politicians and so whatever they do has the blessing of the people, but we both know that is bullshit. For example, when Obamacare was passed, there is 100% zero argument on this by the way, it was not favored by a majority of the country. This is an example of a minority group oppressing a majority group, usually it is the other way around in a Democracy, which we have become... the Republic is long gone.

Anyway, I should be able to opt out and I should be able to not have to participate in the "will of the people (should read will of the majority)". The majority fuck up often and do shit I want no part of... but like I said, this isn't a free state so I don't expect those options. I also find it hard to reconcile the fact that I never gave my consent to the government for any of their actions or even their formation yet I am still subject to its whims.
 
Not really. It seems the media wants something done and many of the politicians with a D next their name want something done. I have no idea how the majority of Americans feel but based on the following map I'm guessing they want their guns.

The problem with "the people" wanting something is that it really isn't "the people" as much as it is a group of people. Even if that group is the majority, they are still oppressing the minority by making them live and act in ways they believe to be unjust.

In my humble opinion, one of the greatest attributes of a "free state", which we are not, is the ability to opt out of things.


You can't have the ability to "opt" out of self-government, nor can you claim the "right" to ignore the Will of The People. If you can do that, what's the point of having any government at all?

I ask myself on a damn near daily basis what the point of having any government is. I have yet to come up with an answer that satisfies me. Better yet, I have yet to come up with an answer where the negatives outweigh the positives.

I would also argue pretty strong that we are hardly "self-governed". You can argue that sure, we elect the politicians and so whatever they do has the blessing of the people, but we both know that is bullshit. For example, when Obamacare was passed, there is 100% zero argument on this by the way, it was not favored by a majority of the country. This is an example of a minority group oppressing a majority group, usually it is the other way around in a Democracy, which we have become... the Republic is long gone.

Anyway, I should be able to opt out and I should be able to not have to participate in the "will of the people (should read will of the majority)". The majority fuck up often and do shit I want no part of... but like I said, this isn't a free state so I don't expect those options. I also find it hard to reconcile the fact that I never gave my consent to the government for any of their actions or even their formation yet I am still subject to its whims.

If you wonder what the value of government is, try living in Somalia for awhile and you'll get it.

If you should be able to "opt out," why shouldn't I or anyone else? Supposed I decided I didn't need to be bound by the law against murder and came over and shot your kids. Would you support me?
 
You can't have the ability to "opt" out of self-government, nor can you claim the "right" to ignore the Will of The People. If you can do that, what's the point of having any government at all?

I ask myself on a damn near daily basis what the point of having any government is. I have yet to come up with an answer that satisfies me. Better yet, I have yet to come up with an answer where the negatives outweigh the positives.

I would also argue pretty strong that we are hardly "self-governed". You can argue that sure, we elect the politicians and so whatever they do has the blessing of the people, but we both know that is bullshit. For example, when Obamacare was passed, there is 100% zero argument on this by the way, it was not favored by a majority of the country. This is an example of a minority group oppressing a majority group, usually it is the other way around in a Democracy, which we have become... the Republic is long gone.

Anyway, I should be able to opt out and I should be able to not have to participate in the "will of the people (should read will of the majority)". The majority fuck up often and do shit I want no part of... but like I said, this isn't a free state so I don't expect those options. I also find it hard to reconcile the fact that I never gave my consent to the government for any of their actions or even their formation yet I am still subject to its whims.

If you wonder what the value of government is, try living in Somalia for awhile and you'll get it.

If you should be able to "opt out," why shouldn't I or anyone else? Supposed I decided I didn't need to be bound by the law against murder and came over and shot your kids. Would you support me?

No, I'd shoot you. I feel much safer protecting myself against common thugs than I do being able to protect myself against the government.

Somalia may not have a "government" but there are certainly leadership structures. Just FYI, because people love to pop off about Somalia when Americans lament their government, Somalia has a lower rate of intentional homicide than the USA.

I would have no problem with a government who was only tasked with stopping people from infringing on the liberty of others (murder, theft, etc) but that is about it. I don't want to participate in or pay for government funded education, welfare, healthcare, etc. Not to mention the overwhelming amounts of violence conducted overseas on my dollar. You think we should be scared of some lunatic with a gun trying to shoot up a school? Get in touch with a few people in brown town who have lost countless innocent children and family members from our foreign policy. These are the things I want to opt out of.
 
Well, if you have your weapons registered, and you tell your doctor you have been feeling a little down, the federal government now has it's legal ruling to take your guns.

In one fell swoop, it has taken away your 2nd and 4th amendment rights. . . via the courts.

Federal court: police can break down door and seize guns without warrant or charges

http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/sutterfield-vs-milwaukee/
"The intrusions upon Sutterfield's privacy were profound."
SWAT-raid.jpg

“Although the court had found it ‘likely’ that Sutterfield’s Fourth Amendment rights had been violated, the court discerned no basis to hold Milwaukee liable for the violation,” Judge Illana Rovner wrote for the three-judge panel on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. She conceded that “the intrusions upon Sutterfield’s privacy were profound,” and noted, “at the core of the privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment is the right to be let alone in one’s home.”

However, since the court believed that the forced entry was done with Sutterfield’s best interests in mind, the circumstances were allowable under the 4th Amendment. Judge Rovner wrote, “There is no suggestion that (police) acted for any reason other than to protect Sutterfield from harm.”

“Even if the officers did exceed constitutional boundaries,” the court document states, “they are protected by qualified immunity.”
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top