Governments do not protect rights

[Derideo_Te]

How did the people that insisted that MLK was crazy benefit from him exercising his rights?

So you are a modern day MLK? Please provide links to your speeches, writings and actions that are benefiting others.

You asked a question, I answered, why should I give up my privacy simply because you are dumber than dog shit?

You made a claim so the onus is on you to substantiate it when called upon. Failing to do so only harms your credibility. As does your defensiveness and need to denigrate others.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Feinstein's bill allows us to own over 2000 different weapons, but specifically exempts police, firemen, government employees, and various other groups from those restrictions.

If her bill was reasonable it would apply to everyone. The fact that it doesn't apply to everyone means that it is a step toward tyranny, just like everything Hitler did.

So would you be safer from tyranny if you were allowed to own nuclear missiles since that would mean that you would be on a par with the government as far as weapons are concerned?

Funny, I don't recall saying that. Does that mean you can't actually refute what I said, so you are forced to make things up? If so, I will take this as a concession and leave it alone.

You stated that you are being limited to a mere 2000 different weapons. Since you consider that unacceptable it is necessary to determine what the upper limit might be that you would find acceptable. The current number falls somewhere between 2000 and nuclear missiles. Can you narrow that down at all as to what you consider to be acceptable?

 

[bucs90]

So would you be safer from tyranny if you were allowed to own nuclear missiles since that would mean that you would be on a par with the government as far as weapons are concerned?

Funny, I don't recall saying that. Does that mean you can't actually refute what I said, so you are forced to make things up? If so, I will take this as a concession and leave it alone.

You stated that you are being limited to a mere 2000 different weapons. Since you consider that unacceptable it is necessary to determine what the upper limit might be that you would find acceptable. The current number falls somewhere between 2000 and nuclear missiles. Can you narrow that down at all as to what you consider to be acceptable?

Some right wingers think they are entitled to own nukes. And M1 tanks. And an F16 if they can afford it. Hell, some would think they should be allowed to own a fully operating Battleship with a full load of weaponry to cruise the Gulf of Mexico in with 100 of their redneck friends.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Im debating a retard obviously.

If she spent 23 years in jail, that would put her case happening when....sometime in the 80's at latest? And, I referred you to how the DoJ and state govts spent a lot of time and effort in the 70's and 80's cleaning up police corruption to the low-point of corruption that we have today. AND...part of cleaning it up was requiring writtena and videotaped confessions, AND judges who are no longer willing to sign warrants with nothing but a confession as evidence.

See.....society progressed, even if you didnt.

It progressed? This just happened Thursday, how much could it have progressed since then?

By the way, your math sucks.

2013-23=1990

You said she spent 23 years in. So, she would've gone IN to jail in March 1990, right? And, if it is a case that ended in a 23 year sentence, it was obviously a major felony case. And from having worked in LE, I know that those cases almost never go to trial any earlier than a year after the fact due to case prep and court backlog.

So, I assume her case was an incident that actually happened in the late 80's. 1988 or 1989.

But yes. Society progressed. We cleaned up police corruption in the 70's and 80's, and today, police corruption is at an all time low.

Since society has progressed, we can say with certainty that no one is ever arrested, put in solitary confinement, denied medical treatment, and never taken to court, because, as you point out, society has progressed. Be careful before you answer that one. (By the way, if you don't see the circular argument there you are in worse shape than I thought.)

Man spends 2 years in solitary after DWI arrest - U.S. News

Who knows, maybe we progressed in the last 8 years. At least we have prosecutors who stand up to bad cops, and would never try to hide their records like they did in the 1980s.

Prosecutor Shaming: Florida State's Attorney Ed Brodsky

Damn, you just can't win, that one happened last year, and the prosecutor is still trying to hide the fact that he lied.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ok. I drove to the mall today. I had a right to do that with relative safety, and shopped without fear of being robbed. I even took my girlfriend, and she wandered off to one of those lame womens stores while I strolled Barnes and Noble. I never worried she'd be raped or kidnapped by the local cops, like she may have been in Mexico or Afghanistan by their cops. Then we went out to eat. We overheard a couple who were very rude and complained about their food. That couple didnt have to worry about being beaten by the bar staff. Millions of people did that same thing today, without much worry. Because we established governments long ago to protect that basic pursuit of a happy life.


Oh, btw, if you lived on a distant island with 1,000 other people, with absolutely no government- what would your rights be? Who would ensure the other 1,000 protected your rights? Would the other 1,000 people respect those rights? Would they enjoy the same rights that you made up for yourself????

I didn't see anything in that post that even started to address my challenge.

Because you dont think critically.

Government provides a micro response, but a macro sense of consequence. We dont know how many horrors never occurred simply because our govt provides a consequence to wrongdoing. People like you dont think that deeply about it.

So you asked how govt protects my rights. I go about my day happy and safe, every single day. And 50% of that is because we have governments that provide a consequence, and thus, deter a vast majority of evil behavior. And because we've been doing that for 200 years, our society has been conditioned to those norms, and we live in an incredibly safe, awesome, fun country. The other 50% of that equation is personal responsibility to make safe, sound decisions.

That concept is probably a bit too deep sociologically for you to grasp.

I never asked you how the government protects your rights, I could do a better job of answering that question than you in my sleep. I challenged anyone to show me a single example of a government that consistently protects people's rights. You jumped in, said this was going to be fun, and started talking about everything but the records of governments have protecting rights.

One example, out of the hundreds of governments currently in the world, and the thousands from history, where the rights of the people subject to its protection were consistently put first. Just one.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So you are a modern day MLK? Please provide links to your speeches, writings and actions that are benefiting others.

You asked a question, I answered, why should I give up my privacy simply because you are dumber than dog shit?

You made a claim so the onus is on you to substantiate it when called upon. Failing to do so only harms your credibility. As does your defensiveness and need to denigrate others.

I made no claim, I stated a fact, everyone benefits when anyone stands up for their rights. I even provided an example for the dumber readers, like yourself.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So would you be safer from tyranny if you were allowed to own nuclear missiles since that would mean that you would be on a par with the government as far as weapons are concerned?

Funny, I don't recall saying that. Does that mean you can't actually refute what I said, so you are forced to make things up? If so, I will take this as a concession and leave it alone.

You stated that you are being limited to a mere 2000 different weapons. Since you consider that unacceptable it is necessary to determine what the upper limit might be that you would find acceptable. The current number falls somewhere between 2000 and nuclear missiles. Can you narrow that down at all as to what you consider to be acceptable?

I am not being limited to anything. Feinstein's bill limits the weapons people are allowed to buy, but it hasn't passed, and has no chance at all of passing. That is something even you should be able to grasp.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Funny, I don't recall saying that. Does that mean you can't actually refute what I said, so you are forced to make things up? If so, I will take this as a concession and leave it alone.

You stated that you are being limited to a mere 2000 different weapons. Since you consider that unacceptable it is necessary to determine what the upper limit might be that you would find acceptable. The current number falls somewhere between 2000 and nuclear missiles. Can you narrow that down at all as to what you consider to be acceptable?

Some right wingers think they are entitled to own nukes. And M1 tanks. And an F16 if they can afford it. Hell, some would think they should be allowed to own a fully operating Battleship with a full load of weaponry to cruise the Gulf of Mexico in with 100 of their redneck friends.

How many times do people have to point out to you that awning tanks is perfectly legal? Same with battleships, believe it or not. If you can afford it, you can buy it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Funny, I don't recall saying that. Does that mean you can't actually refute what I said, so you are forced to make things up? If so, I will take this as a concession and leave it alone.

You stated that you are being limited to a mere 2000 different weapons. Since you consider that unacceptable it is necessary to determine what the upper limit might be that you would find acceptable. The current number falls somewhere between 2000 and nuclear missiles. Can you narrow that down at all as to what you consider to be acceptable?

I am not being limited to anything. Feinstein's bill limits the weapons people are allowed to buy, but it hasn't passed, and has no chance at all of passing. That is something even you should be able to grasp.

Your original allegation was that limiting the variety of weapons you could purchase was a step towards tyranny. What weapons must you be allowed to own in order to stave off tyranny? This question has nothing to do with any legislation. It is a straightforward question intended to determine what you believe will give you sufficient parity to ensure that you can never be subjected to tyranny.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You stated that you are being limited to a mere 2000 different weapons. Since you consider that unacceptable it is necessary to determine what the upper limit might be that you would find acceptable. The current number falls somewhere between 2000 and nuclear missiles. Can you narrow that down at all as to what you consider to be acceptable?

I am not being limited to anything. Feinstein's bill limits the weapons people are allowed to buy, but it hasn't passed, and has no chance at all of passing. That is something even you should be able to grasp.

Your original allegation was that limiting the variety of weapons you could purchase was a step towards tyranny. What weapons must you be allowed to own in order to stave off tyranny? This question has nothing to do with any legislation. It is a straightforward question intended to determine what you believe will give you sufficient parity to ensure that you can never be subjected to tyranny.

This is a perfectly reasonable request, others would be interested in a response, since it goes to the question as to what weapons would be considered dangerous and unusual, and what weapons in common use.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You stated that you are being limited to a mere 2000 different weapons. Since you consider that unacceptable it is necessary to determine what the upper limit might be that you would find acceptable. The current number falls somewhere between 2000 and nuclear missiles. Can you narrow that down at all as to what you consider to be acceptable?

I am not being limited to anything. Feinstein's bill limits the weapons people are allowed to buy, but it hasn't passed, and has no chance at all of passing. That is something even you should be able to grasp.

Your original allegation was that limiting the variety of weapons you could purchase was a step towards tyranny. What weapons must you be allowed to own in order to stave off tyranny? This question has nothing to do with any legislation. It is a straightforward question intended to determine what you believe will give you sufficient parity to ensure that you can never be subjected to tyranny.

My point was, and is, that any law that treats one group of people differently than another is a step toward tyranny, go back and read it if you don't believe me. After you do that we might be able to discuss whatever the **** point you are trying to make, if you figure out how to articulate based on what I am saying, instead of basing it on your delusions.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am not being limited to anything. Feinstein's bill limits the weapons people are allowed to buy, but it hasn't passed, and has no chance at all of passing. That is something even you should be able to grasp.

Your original allegation was that limiting the variety of weapons you could purchase was a step towards tyranny. What weapons must you be allowed to own in order to stave off tyranny? This question has nothing to do with any legislation. It is a straightforward question intended to determine what you believe will give you sufficient parity to ensure that you can never be subjected to tyranny.

This is a perfectly reasonable request, others would be interested in a response, since it goes to the question as to what weapons would be considered dangerous and unusual, and what weapons in common use.

There is nothing reasonable about that request unless you think straw man arguments are reasonable.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I am not being limited to anything. Feinstein's bill limits the weapons people are allowed to buy, but it hasn't passed, and has no chance at all of passing. That is something even you should be able to grasp.

Your original allegation was that limiting the variety of weapons you could purchase was a step towards tyranny. What weapons must you be allowed to own in order to stave off tyranny? This question has nothing to do with any legislation. It is a straightforward question intended to determine what you believe will give you sufficient parity to ensure that you can never be subjected to tyranny.

My point was, and is, that any law that treats one group of people differently than another is a step toward tyranny, go back and read it if you don't believe me. After you do that we might be able to discuss whatever the **** point you are trying to make, if you figure out how to articulate based on what I am saying, instead of basing it on your delusions.

So the Defense of Marriage Act was a step towards tyranny? Universal background checks for all gun purchases would be a step away from tyranny. So is lifting the income cap on Social Security. Eliminating tax exemptions for religious organizations would be another step away from tyranny. Do you have a published manifesto for this utopian egalitarian society of yours? Or are you just plagiarizing Karl Marx?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Your original allegation was that limiting the variety of weapons you could purchase was a step towards tyranny. What weapons must you be allowed to own in order to stave off tyranny? This question has nothing to do with any legislation. It is a straightforward question intended to determine what you believe will give you sufficient parity to ensure that you can never be subjected to tyranny.

My point was, and is, that any law that treats one group of people differently than another is a step toward tyranny, go back and read it if you don't believe me. After you do that we might be able to discuss whatever the **** point you are trying to make, if you figure out how to articulate based on what I am saying, instead of basing it on your delusions.

So the Defense of Marriage Act was a step towards tyranny? Universal background checks for all gun purchases would be a step away from tyranny. So is lifting the income cap on Social Security. Eliminating tax exemptions for religious organizations would be another step away from tyranny. Do you have a published manifesto for this utopian egalitarian society of yours? Or are you just plagiarizing Karl Marx?

Feel free to point out where I have defended DOMA.

While you are at it, feel free to point out where I said that the only way to get to tyranny is to make laws apply to different people differently.

 

[whitehall]

The error is comparing the US Constitutional guarantee of freedom spelled out in the Bill of Rights with a two bit European left wing dictatorship. Younger Americans often seem surprised at government atrocities in Europe even today because they forget that the Constitutional guarantees of the greatest Country in the world do not extend beyond the borders of the US.

 

[Derideo_Te]

My point was, and is, that any law that treats one group of people differently than another is a step toward tyranny, go back and read it if you don't believe me. After you do that we might be able to discuss whatever the **** point you are trying to make, if you figure out how to articulate based on what I am saying, instead of basing it on your delusions.

So the Defense of Marriage Act was a step towards tyranny? Universal background checks for all gun purchases would be a step away from tyranny. So is lifting the income cap on Social Security. Eliminating tax exemptions for religious organizations would be another step away from tyranny. Do you have a published manifesto for this utopian egalitarian society of yours? Or are you just plagiarizing Karl Marx?

Feel free to point out where I have defended DOMA.

While you are at it, feel free to point out where I said that the only way to get to tyranny is to make laws apply to different people differently.

Are you now denying that you made this statement?

My point was, and is, that any law that treats one group of people differently than another is a step toward tyranny, go back and read it if you don't believe me.

You were provided with a set of laws that treat people differently and others that won't. Instead of embracing what you claim to believe you are now competing for the gold in the backpedaling olympics.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So the Defense of Marriage Act was a step towards tyranny? Universal background checks for all gun purchases would be a step away from tyranny. So is lifting the income cap on Social Security. Eliminating tax exemptions for religious organizations would be another step away from tyranny. Do you have a published manifesto for this utopian egalitarian society of yours? Or are you just plagiarizing Karl Marx?

Feel free to point out where I have defended DOMA.

While you are at it, feel free to point out where I said that the only way to get to tyranny is to make laws apply to different people differently.

Are you now denying that you made this statement?

My point was, and is, that any law that treats one group of people differently than another is a step toward tyranny, go back and read it if you don't believe me.

You were provided with a set of laws that treat people differently and others that won't. Instead of embracing what you claim to believe you are now competing for the gold in the backpedaling olympics.

Do you have a problem with basic English? Let me repeat the challenge, feel free to point out where I said that the only way to get to tyranny is to make laws apply to different people differently

 

[Derideo_Te]

Feel free to point out where I have defended DOMA.

While you are at it, feel free to point out where I said that the only way to get to tyranny is to make laws apply to different people differently.

Are you now denying that you made this statement?

My point was, and is, that any law that treats one group of people differently than another is a step toward tyranny, go back and read it if you don't believe me.

You were provided with a set of laws that treat people differently and others that won't. Instead of embracing what you claim to believe you are now competing for the gold in the backpedaling olympics.

Do you have a problem with basic English? Let me repeat the challenge, feel free to point out where I said that the only way to get to tyranny is to make laws apply to different people differently

The retraction of your baseless claim that gun laws are a step towards tyranny is acknowledged and accepted. Have a nice day.

 

[editec]

I get accused of living in a fantasy world because I insist that governments do not provide, nor do they protect, our rights. Let me show you what hapens when the government sets out to protect us.

Hitler Survivor Condemns Gun Control 'KEEP YOUR GUNS, BUY MORE GUNS' - Katie Worthman - YouTube

I hereby issue an open challenge that trusts the government to protect our rights. This should be really easy for you, all you have to do is show me a single example of a government that consistently protects the rights of the people who are under its protection. Before anyone starts by positing to the USA I want to point out the Japanese Internment camps, Jim Crow laws, and the PATRIOT Act, all of which existed in the last 100 years.

I belive people are so confused about "rights" that trying to discuss then rationally is near impossible.

One can only have rights RELATIVE to something (or someone) else.

So the very idea of "unalienable" rights is just plain silly.

It's a nice idea, of course, but individual rights only exist relative to a society with some kind of social contract that is enforced by law.

If you live on a desert island do you have rights?

No, of course not.

But if one other person comes to that island you and he might decide to grant you some rights..or not.

 

[Redfish]

I get accused of living in a fantasy world because I insist that governments do not provide, nor do they protect, our rights. Let me show you what hapens when the government sets out to protect us.

Hitler Survivor Condemns Gun Control 'KEEP YOUR GUNS, BUY MORE GUNS' - Katie Worthman - YouTube

I hereby issue an open challenge that trusts the government to protect our rights. This should be really easy for you, all you have to do is show me a single example of a government that consistently protects the rights of the people who are under its protection. Before anyone starts by positing to the USA I want to point out the Japanese Internment camps, Jim Crow laws, and the PATRIOT Act, all of which existed in the last 100 years.

I belive people are so confused about "rights" that trying to discuss then rationally is near impossible.

One can only have rights RELATIVE to something (or someone) else.

So the very idea of "unalienable" rights is just plain silly.

It's a nice idea, of course, but individual rights only exist relative to a society with some kind of social contract that is enforced by law.

If you live on a desert island do you have rights?

No, of course not.

But if one other person comes to that island you and he might decide to grant you some rights..or not.

you are correct of course. thats why I continue to challenge the LGBT members on this forum when they claim that they have "a fundamental right" to gay marriage.

NO, they don't. the only rights any of us have are the rights granted by society in general. The language in the constitution sets up judeo/christian principles as the basis for our rights