- Banned
- #1
As the title says- why is there so much vitriol for people who like guns (or any other natural right) ?
Why are 2nd amendment supporters not up in arms about the evisceration of the 4th amendment? Asset forfeiture, etc.? Where's the vitriol for that? The TSA? The NDAA? Official surveillance? Official lies, all of them- to pick and choose leaves a precarious situation- at some point it will turn against you- make no mistake about it.
Do anti second amendment people favor the evisceration of constitutional obligations by officials? Do pro second amendment people favor it?
Do anti second amendment people support the war on drugs? Do pro second amendment people support it?
Is it constitutional?
Do anti second amendment people really believe the gov't anti second amendment officials are actually on your side when all is said and done? Do pro second amendment people really believe officials who are pro second amendment are really on your side?
How are "granted authority" (enumerated powers) different from natural rights? Who, which group, supports the erosion of the protection of natural rights? Who, which group advocates for more gov't control? In what areas?
If in opposition of the erosion why no vitriol for the evisceration of the 4th amendment? If in favor of the erosion why not just come right out and say it? Why does either group hide behind feigned outrage, i.e., vitriol?
Where is the line to be drawn? The rule of law or the edict of man? Why do people not recognize that altruistic is an endeavor to benefit everyone and altruism benefits the exerciser? Does neither side of the vitriolic rhetoric not believe their own power lies only in them in exercising their natural rights? It's not "officially" granted. It doesn't need the collectives approval, either way. It needs only the Individual effort to be effective- who expresses vitriol for Individual effort? Individual effort is a natural right- forced action is an immoral effort, natural though it may be, using it in any manner except self defense is immoral- all conflict begins when forcing another to submit- there is no caveat in all. Why no vitriol for those who want to force submission- especially "officially"- does that absolve the vitriolic believer of responsibility? Does expressing vitriol toward an opposite render their rights wrong? Does it change their mind, or beliefs, or tactics?
Why are 2nd amendment supporters not up in arms about the evisceration of the 4th amendment? Asset forfeiture, etc.? Where's the vitriol for that? The TSA? The NDAA? Official surveillance? Official lies, all of them- to pick and choose leaves a precarious situation- at some point it will turn against you- make no mistake about it.
Do anti second amendment people favor the evisceration of constitutional obligations by officials? Do pro second amendment people favor it?
Do anti second amendment people support the war on drugs? Do pro second amendment people support it?
Is it constitutional?
Do anti second amendment people really believe the gov't anti second amendment officials are actually on your side when all is said and done? Do pro second amendment people really believe officials who are pro second amendment are really on your side?
How are "granted authority" (enumerated powers) different from natural rights? Who, which group, supports the erosion of the protection of natural rights? Who, which group advocates for more gov't control? In what areas?
If in opposition of the erosion why no vitriol for the evisceration of the 4th amendment? If in favor of the erosion why not just come right out and say it? Why does either group hide behind feigned outrage, i.e., vitriol?
Where is the line to be drawn? The rule of law or the edict of man? Why do people not recognize that altruistic is an endeavor to benefit everyone and altruism benefits the exerciser? Does neither side of the vitriolic rhetoric not believe their own power lies only in them in exercising their natural rights? It's not "officially" granted. It doesn't need the collectives approval, either way. It needs only the Individual effort to be effective- who expresses vitriol for Individual effort? Individual effort is a natural right- forced action is an immoral effort, natural though it may be, using it in any manner except self defense is immoral- all conflict begins when forcing another to submit- there is no caveat in all. Why no vitriol for those who want to force submission- especially "officially"- does that absolve the vitriolic believer of responsibility? Does expressing vitriol toward an opposite render their rights wrong? Does it change their mind, or beliefs, or tactics?
