"Government" is Not the Problem.

[gipper]

The United States Constitution is a Social Contract. It’s as simple as that.


If you claim the Second Amendment as documentation of your right to bear arms, you are agreeing to live by The Social Contract of governance called The United States Constitution. It’s as simple as that.

If you take advantage of your US Citizenship or legal alien status and the Social Security Number that goes along with it and exchange money for fun and profit, you are agreeing to live by The Social Contract called The United States Constitution. It’s as simple as that.

The Constitution is “the government” and “the government” is The Constitution.

Permission to own deadly weapons is a privilege given to all of us by all of us through the dynamic and ongoing implementation of The Contract by people that we hire to police us in the enforcement of The Contract. Sure we have issues, but 21st Century life is better than 500 years ago when permission for everything came from the asshole who could afford the biggest army of well armed sociopaths.

The Constitution, like “the government” is merely a tool. Tools don’t kill Monkeys or take away their rights, Monkeys with tools kill Monkeys and take away their rights.

If government grants rights, government can take away rights.

The Founders never believed the Constitution granted rights. It was designed to prevent government from taking away the natural rights of all human beings.

You keep up with your silly statist beliefs. You want rule by elite, even though history should clearly inform you that that belief is utterly ignorant and leads to death and suffering.

 

[Boss]

How does our creator give us the right to own an AK-47?

It't not a question of how. It's a self-evident truth we are endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights... one of them is the right to self-govern... in order to protect our right to self govern, we have the right to bear arms and form well-regulated militias.

Back in the 20s, machine guns were becoming widespread weapons of choice among gangsters and lots of people were being killed. So THE PEOPLE decided to establish a limitation on the types of weapons an average citizen could purchase or own. This is because we have the god-given right to self-govern.

Today, we have a bunch of activist liberals trying to take all our guns away because their socialist masters have convinced them it's what we should do. But they only represent about 25-30% of the population. So when these gun-grabbing bills are presented in Congress, they get resoundingly defeated... and the liberals whine and moan.

Right-wing American Politics:

I understand and agree with the problem....

I'm unwilling to negotiate because I'm afraid.

There is no negotiating my inalienable rights... sorry.

Somewhere between sling-shots and fully armed aircraft carriers is a list of weapons that the general public should have access to. You can either be part of the process that negotiates that list or you can dig in your two right heels and get dragged kicking and screaming like a little girl in to the 21st Century any way.

Time marches on.

I don't think there is a problem with the list of weapons the general public has access to. OR ammo... or clips... or background checks. And until you convince myself and millions of other gun owning Americans there is a problem, you're goddamn right our heels are dug in and will remain dug in... and you liberal pussies can go pound sand.

What there IS a problem with is the liberal left not recognizing and acknowledging radical Islamic terrorism.

 

[bripat9643]

The United States Constitution is a Social Contract. It’s as simple as that.

It's not a contract since no one living ever agreed to it.

If you claim the Second Amendment as documentation of your right to bear arms, you are agreeing to live by The Social Contract of governance called The United States Constitution. It’s as simple as that.

Wrongo. The only way you agree to governed by the United States Constitution is by explicitly agreeing to be governed by the United States Constitution. Further, the government quit complying with the Constitution 170 years ago, so the "contract" is null and void.

If you take advantage of your US Citizenship or legal alien status and the Social Security Number that goes along with it and exchange money for fun and profit, you are agreeing to live by The Social Contract called The United States Constitution. It’s as simple as that.

Horseshit.

The Constitution is “the government” and “the government” is The Constitution.

That's also horseshit. You're just a geyser of idiotic and obviously wrong pap.

Permission to own deadly weapons is a privilege given to all of us by all of us through the dynamic and ongoing implementation of The Contract by people that we hire to police us in the enforcement of The Contract. Sure we have issues, but 21st Century life is better than 500 years ago when permission for everything came from the asshole who could afford the biggest army of well armed sociopaths.

The Constitution, like “the government” is merely a tool. Tools don’t kill Monkeys or take away their rights, Monkeys with tools kill Monkeys and take away their rights.

Wrong, idiot. The 2nd Amendment guarantees our right to bear arms. It's not a privilege. It's a right. Learn the difference.

 

[bripat9643]

The United States Constitution is a Social Contract. It’s as simple as that.


If you claim the Second Amendment as documentation of your right to bear arms, you are agreeing to live by The Social Contract of governance called The United States Constitution. It’s as simple as that.

If you take advantage of your US Citizenship or legal alien status and the Social Security Number that goes along with it and exchange money for fun and profit, you are agreeing to live by The Social Contract called The United States Constitution. It’s as simple as that.

The Constitution is “the government” and “the government” is The Constitution.

Permission to own deadly weapons is a privilege given to all of us by all of us through the dynamic and ongoing implementation of The Contract by people that we hire to police us in the enforcement of The Contract. Sure we have issues, but 21st Century life is better than 500 years ago when permission for everything came from the asshole who could afford the biggest army of well armed sociopaths.

The Constitution, like “the government” is merely a tool. Tools don’t kill Monkeys or take away their rights, Monkeys with tools kill Monkeys and take away their rights.

If government grants rights, government can take away rights.

The Founders never believed the Constitution granted rights. It was designed to prevent government from taking away the natural rights of all human beings.

You keep up with your silly statist beliefs. You want rule by elite, even though history should clearly inform you that that belief is utterly ignorant and leads to death and suffering.

The expression "grant rights." is an oxymoron.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The United States Constitution is a Social Contract. It’s as simple as that.


If you claim the Second Amendment as documentation of your right to bear arms, you are agreeing to live by The Social Contract of governance called The United States Constitution. It’s as simple as that.

If you take advantage of your US Citizenship or legal alien status and the Social Security Number that goes along with it and exchange money for fun and profit, you are agreeing to live by The Social Contract called The United States Constitution. It’s as simple as that.

The Constitution is “the government” and “the government” is The Constitution.

Permission to own deadly weapons is a privilege given to all of us by all of us through the dynamic and ongoing implementation of The Contract by people that we hire to police us in the enforcement of The Contract. Sure we have issues, but 21st Century life is better than 500 years ago when permission for everything came from the asshole who could afford the biggest army of well armed sociopaths.

The Constitution, like “the government” is merely a tool. Tools don’t kill Monkeys or take away their rights, Monkeys with tools kill Monkeys and take away their rights.

Yes so when people say an extended magazine clip ban or an assault gun ban is the left taking away their God given rights it's BS. It's our right to self govern according to you. If in that governance the people deem a machine gun or any other gun too dangerous or a problem for whatever reason, they have every right to take it away. Like they did with slavery and machine guns.

Obama has never made an effort to take everybodies guns away. That's all hot air and fear mongering of the slippery slope. In a gun owner, I'm in favor of some gun control, I know many that Have similar beliefs.

So, according to you, government gives rights and can take them away. Therefore, if 74% vote to enslave 13% of the population or ban a 2% religion, you're good with that? You think that's Constitutionally legal?

Do I think that such a scenario would be Constitutionally legal? Hell no.

Do I trust that enough Americans would be appalled at such unfairness to not let it happen? I do.

The recent political victories for America's gay community in obtaining their rightful piece of the American Pie gives me hope toward that trust.

 

[AVG-JOE]

We either tolerate each others life-styles within the guidelines of The Contract or the terrorists win.

 

[Slade3200]

We are so damn spoiled in this country, the shit we complain about baffles me sometimes.

You call it "spoiled". Spoiled by who, ourselves? The reason we have it better than most is because our Founding Fathers were smart enough to put the power of governing in the hands of the people. THE PEOPLE are what made us great, prosperous, and powerful, not some fucking dictator repressive system such as communism. That's why we don't stand in line for toilet paper. It's why homosexuals don't get thrown off rooftops or hanged in public. It's why women aren't stoned for being raped. If the current administration had it's way, none of us would be allowed to defend ourselves, own property, or make decisions regarding our own families.
You can call that being "spoiled" if you like but I don't think you have a clue as to why we ARE. It's not something our benevolent government did for us, it's what we did for OURSELVES despite their efforts.

Do you hear yourself??? Yes it's because of the people... The people who elect leaders, who then create laws, and a system to enforce those laws. The government is made up of the people. It represents the people. It's not your enemy. We are the richest and most powerful country In the world and you bitch about movements that try and feed the poor and take care of the elderly, build roads, keep our water and environmental clean, etc etc etc. grow the fuck up... the world isnt just about you.

Ok, time for you to back up your bullshit and post some quotes of me opposing feeding the poor or caring for the elderly and the other two overused talking points you threw out there that you can't back up. Do it or STFU.

I dont need a quote, we can clear it up right now... If you support entitlement programs and spending and the work of the environmental protection programs say so and I'll apologize for my statement.

Which programs? Be specific.

It's not about specific programs, I'll be the first to say that there needs to be major reform in our gov programs. What we are talking about is ideology and role of government, and if I recall you are a pretty strong advocate of anti government involvement. Am I wrong?

 

[Slade3200]

The United States Constitution is a Social Contract. It’s as simple as that.


If you claim the Second Amendment as documentation of your right to bear arms, you are agreeing to live by The Social Contract of governance called The United States Constitution. It’s as simple as that.

If you take advantage of your US Citizenship or legal alien status and the Social Security Number that goes along with it and exchange money for fun and profit, you are agreeing to live by The Social Contract called The United States Constitution. It’s as simple as that.

The Constitution is “the government” and “the government” is The Constitution.

Permission to own deadly weapons is a privilege given to all of us by all of us through the dynamic and ongoing implementation of The Contract by people that we hire to police us in the enforcement of The Contract. Sure we have issues, but 21st Century life is better than 500 years ago when permission for everything came from the asshole who could afford the biggest army of well armed sociopaths.

The Constitution, like “the government” is merely a tool. Tools don’t kill Monkeys or take away their rights, Monkeys with tools kill Monkeys and take away their rights.

Yes so when people say an extended magazine clip ban or an assault gun ban is the left taking away their God given rights it's BS. It's our right to self govern according to you. If in that governance the people deem a machine gun or any other gun too dangerous or a problem for whatever reason, they have every right to take it away. Like they did with slavery and machine guns.

Obama has never made an effort to take everybodies guns away. That's all hot air and fear mongering of the slippery slope. In a gun owner, I'm in favor of some gun control, I know many that Have similar beliefs.

So, according to you, government gives rights and can take them away. Therefore, if 74% vote to enslave 13% of the population or ban a 2% religion, you're good with that? You think that's Constitutionally legal?

I would not be good with that and would loudly object, the constitutionality of it depends on how the rule/laws were made, enacted, and enforced

 

[AVG-JOE]

The United States Constitution is a Social Contract. It’s as simple as that.


If you claim the Second Amendment as documentation of your right to bear arms, you are agreeing to live by The Social Contract of governance called The United States Constitution. It’s as simple as that.

If you take advantage of your US Citizenship or legal alien status and the Social Security Number that goes along with it and exchange money for fun and profit, you are agreeing to live by The Social Contract called The United States Constitution. It’s as simple as that.

The Constitution is “the government” and “the government” is The Constitution.

Permission to own deadly weapons is a privilege given to all of us by all of us through the dynamic and ongoing implementation of The Contract by people that we hire to police us in the enforcement of The Contract. Sure we have issues, but 21st Century life is better than 500 years ago when permission for everything came from the asshole who could afford the biggest army of well armed sociopaths.

The Constitution, like “the government” is merely a tool. Tools don’t kill Monkeys or take away their rights, Monkeys with tools kill Monkeys and take away their rights.

If government grants rights, government can take away rights.

The Founders never believed the Constitution granted rights. It was designed to prevent government from taking away the natural rights of all human beings.

You keep up with your silly statist beliefs. You want rule by elite, even though history should clearly inform you that that belief is utterly ignorant and leads to death and suffering.

As opposed to what? What we have now?

The reality on the ground in the 21st Century is that "The Government" exists and everyone living between the Mexican and Canadian borders south and north has no choice but to deal with that fact.

We have as much or more control over who and what governs us as any community of Monkeys in history, and most of us either don't understand that privilege and don't give a fuck, or we're scared shitless of the tool we hold in our hands.

 

[gipper]

The United States Constitution is a Social Contract. It’s as simple as that.


If you claim the Second Amendment as documentation of your right to bear arms, you are agreeing to live by The Social Contract of governance called The United States Constitution. It’s as simple as that.

If you take advantage of your US Citizenship or legal alien status and the Social Security Number that goes along with it and exchange money for fun and profit, you are agreeing to live by The Social Contract called The United States Constitution. It’s as simple as that.

The Constitution is “the government” and “the government” is The Constitution.

Permission to own deadly weapons is a privilege given to all of us by all of us through the dynamic and ongoing implementation of The Contract by people that we hire to police us in the enforcement of The Contract. Sure we have issues, but 21st Century life is better than 500 years ago when permission for everything came from the asshole who could afford the biggest army of well armed sociopaths.

The Constitution, like “the government” is merely a tool. Tools don’t kill Monkeys or take away their rights, Monkeys with tools kill Monkeys and take away their rights.

If government grants rights, government can take away rights.

The Founders never believed the Constitution granted rights. It was designed to prevent government from taking away the natural rights of all human beings.

You keep up with your silly statist beliefs. You want rule by elite, even though history should clearly inform you that that belief is utterly ignorant and leads to death and suffering.

As opposed to what? What we have now?

The reality on the ground in the 21st Century is that "The Government" exists and everyone living between the Mexican and Canadian borders south and north has no choice but to deal with that fact.

We have as much or more control over who and what governs us as any community of Monkeys in history, and most of us either don't understand that privilege and don't give a fuck, or we're scared shitless of the tool we hold in our hands.

Yes you have stated the obvious. We have little choice. We must deal with big government as best we can. It sucks, but oh well.

If you think an American of 150 years ago had the same relationship with the central government as an American today, you are not thinking logically.

 

[bripat9643]

The United States Constitution is a Social Contract. It’s as simple as that.


If you claim the Second Amendment as documentation of your right to bear arms, you are agreeing to live by The Social Contract of governance called The United States Constitution. It’s as simple as that.

If you take advantage of your US Citizenship or legal alien status and the Social Security Number that goes along with it and exchange money for fun and profit, you are agreeing to live by The Social Contract called The United States Constitution. It’s as simple as that.

The Constitution is “the government” and “the government” is The Constitution.

Permission to own deadly weapons is a privilege given to all of us by all of us through the dynamic and ongoing implementation of The Contract by people that we hire to police us in the enforcement of The Contract. Sure we have issues, but 21st Century life is better than 500 years ago when permission for everything came from the asshole who could afford the biggest army of well armed sociopaths.

The Constitution, like “the government” is merely a tool. Tools don’t kill Monkeys or take away their rights, Monkeys with tools kill Monkeys and take away their rights.

Yes so when people say an extended magazine clip ban or an assault gun ban is the left taking away their God given rights it's BS. It's our right to self govern according to you. If in that governance the people deem a machine gun or any other gun too dangerous or a problem for whatever reason, they have every right to take it away. Like they did with slavery and machine guns.

Obama has never made an effort to take everybodies guns away. That's all hot air and fear mongering of the slippery slope. In a gun owner, I'm in favor of some gun control, I know many that Have similar beliefs.

So, according to you, government gives rights and can take them away. Therefore, if 74% vote to enslave 13% of the population or ban a 2% religion, you're good with that? You think that's Constitutionally legal?

Do I think that such a scenario would be Constitutionally legal? Hell no.

Do I trust that enough Americans would be appalled at such unfairness to not let it happen? I do.

The recent political victories for America's gay community in obtaining their rightful piece of the American Pie gives me hope toward that trust.

What basis would they have for being appalled? If the majority says a certain segment of the population shall be slaves, who are you to argue with them? On what basis would you object? You just said that government decides what your rights are.

 

[bripat9643]

The United States Constitution is a Social Contract. It’s as simple as that.


If you claim the Second Amendment as documentation of your right to bear arms, you are agreeing to live by The Social Contract of governance called The United States Constitution. It’s as simple as that.

If you take advantage of your US Citizenship or legal alien status and the Social Security Number that goes along with it and exchange money for fun and profit, you are agreeing to live by The Social Contract called The United States Constitution. It’s as simple as that.

The Constitution is “the government” and “the government” is The Constitution.

Permission to own deadly weapons is a privilege given to all of us by all of us through the dynamic and ongoing implementation of The Contract by people that we hire to police us in the enforcement of The Contract. Sure we have issues, but 21st Century life is better than 500 years ago when permission for everything came from the asshole who could afford the biggest army of well armed sociopaths.

The Constitution, like “the government” is merely a tool. Tools don’t kill Monkeys or take away their rights, Monkeys with tools kill Monkeys and take away their rights.

If government grants rights, government can take away rights.

The Founders never believed the Constitution granted rights. It was designed to prevent government from taking away the natural rights of all human beings.

You keep up with your silly statist beliefs. You want rule by elite, even though history should clearly inform you that that belief is utterly ignorant and leads to death and suffering.

As opposed to what? What we have now?

The reality on the ground in the 21st Century is that "The Government" exists and everyone living between the Mexican and Canadian borders south and north has no choice but to deal with that fact.

We have as much or more control over who and what governs us as any community of Monkeys in history, and most of us either don't understand that privilege and don't give a fuck, or we're scared shitless of the tool we hold in our hands.

The last thing we need is goose steppers like you using government as a "tool" to implement your agenda.

 

[Boss]

We either tolerate each others life-styles within the guidelines of The Contract or the terrorists win.

Fuck you! I don't have to tolerate anything. You fuckwits don't tolerate anything so why the hell should I? You live in this universe where everything has to go your way or you sit in the floor pouting in protest... literally! Tolerance is a two-way street and until your bunch starts showing some signs of tolerance, don't demand that anyone tolerate your idiocy. You're not the fucking Kings of the World and you don't get to tell me what I have to tolerate.

 

[Boss]

We either tolerate each others life-styles...

Tolerate: (liberal translation)

To accept unequivocally, the position and viewpoint of the liberal left without condition. To completely denounce whatever opposing views you may have in order to avoid the stigma of being labeled a bigot, racist, homophobe, etc. To unconditionally capitulate to whatever the current liberal meme is and ridicule anyone who doesn't as being backward and unsophisticated knuckle-draggers and mouth-breathers.

 

[Divine Wind]

I would not be good with that and would loudly object, the constitutionality of it depends on how the rule/laws were made, enacted, and enforced

Yet, like Joe, you think we have no rights and that Tyranny of the Majority would rule the day. So the scenario stands. If enough people in the United States elect Trump and he bans Muslims, you believe that is in keeping with the Constitution. I disagree, but that's what you are saying.

 

[LaDexter]

This chart says it all. Things were good when government spending didn't rise much. Things got worse the more government spending went higher...

 

[Slade3200]

I would not be good with that and would loudly object, the constitutionality of it depends on how the rule/laws were made, enacted, and enforced

Yet, like Joe, you think we have no rights and that Tyranny of the Majority would rule the day. So the scenario stands. If enough people in the United States elect Trump and he bans Muslims, you believe that is in keeping with the Constitution. I disagree, but that's what you are saying.

Does the president have the right to ban an entire religion from our country? Or would it take an act of congress

 

[bripat9643]

I would not be good with that and would loudly object, the constitutionality of it depends on how the rule/laws were made, enacted, and enforced

Yet, like Joe, you think we have no rights and that Tyranny of the Majority would rule the day. So the scenario stands. If enough people in the United States elect Trump and he bans Muslims, you believe that is in keeping with the Constitution. I disagree, but that's what you are saying.

Does the president have the right to ban an entire religion from our country? Or would it take an act of congress

The president can ban immigrants for whatever reason he chooses. He can certainly decline to pay their expenses to get here and decline to wave their visa application expenses, which is exactly what Obama is doing. None of these so-called "refugees" could make it to this country without the U.S. Government paying their way. If you claim he can't ban Muslims, then he can certainly ban immigrants from certain countries, like Syria, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and a host of others.

 

[S.J.]

You call it "spoiled". Spoiled by who, ourselves? The reason we have it better than most is because our Founding Fathers were smart enough to put the power of governing in the hands of the people. THE PEOPLE are what made us great, prosperous, and powerful, not some fucking dictator repressive system such as communism. That's why we don't stand in line for toilet paper. It's why homosexuals don't get thrown off rooftops or hanged in public. It's why women aren't stoned for being raped. If the current administration had it's way, none of us would be allowed to defend ourselves, own property, or make decisions regarding our own families.
You can call that being "spoiled" if you like but I don't think you have a clue as to why we ARE. It's not something our benevolent government did for us, it's what we did for OURSELVES despite their efforts.

Do you hear yourself??? Yes it's because of the people... The people who elect leaders, who then create laws, and a system to enforce those laws. The government is made up of the people. It represents the people. It's not your enemy. We are the richest and most powerful country In the world and you bitch about movements that try and feed the poor and take care of the elderly, build roads, keep our water and environmental clean, etc etc etc. grow the fuck up... the world isnt just about you.

Ok, time for you to back up your bullshit and post some quotes of me opposing feeding the poor or caring for the elderly and the other two overused talking points you threw out there that you can't back up. Do it or STFU.

I dont need a quote, we can clear it up right now... If you support entitlement programs and spending and the work of the environmental protection programs say so and I'll apologize for my statement.

Which programs? Be specific.

It's not about specific programs, I'll be the first to say that there needs to be major reform in our gov programs. What we are talking about is ideology and role of government, and if I recall you are a pretty strong advocate of anti government involvement. Am I wrong?

Yes, you're wrong. Government is supposed to be involved but it goes back to the difference between "providing" and "promoting". Once you understand the difference you can understand my position. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing and I advocate following their lead. Liberals think they have the right to interpret the Constitution to fit their agenda (which is to control everyone and everything). That's not what made us the nation we are.

 

[Slade3200]

I would not be good with that and would loudly object, the constitutionality of it depends on how the rule/laws were made, enacted, and enforced

Yet, like Joe, you think we have no rights and that Tyranny of the Majority would rule the day. So the scenario stands. If enough people in the United States elect Trump and he bans Muslims, you believe that is in keeping with the Constitution. I disagree, but that's what you are saying.

Does the president have the right to ban an entire religion from our country? Or would it take an act of congress

The president can ban immigrants for whatever reason he chooses. He can certainly decline to pay their expenses to get here and decline to wave their visa application expenses, which is exactly what Obama is doing. None of these so-called "refugees" could make it to this country without the U.S. Government paying their way. If you claim he can't ban Muslims, then he can certainly ban immigrants from certain countries, like Syria, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and a host of others.

Well there you go. If Trump gets elected and bans Muslims then I guess he has the authority to do so. Honestly I have looked into he legality and I take what all posters here say with a grain of salt. Regardless, I imagine it would cause great divide and controversy in this country so I hope we don't find ourselves in that situation